"&sf  •^ii%" 


■ 


REPLY   TO 
381ft  ON  BAPTISM,  i 


FROM  THE 


Am.  Bap.  Publication 

Sj  AND  S.  SCHOOL  SOCIETY, 
$  21  8.  Fourth  street,  Philada 


#* 

CL 

•jj 

cf 

i? 

1c 

3 

« 

0 
"a 

«*»* 

IE 

^ 

Q_ 

^W 

*s? 

l£ 

0 

' 

*3 

^ 

$ 

^^■^ 

5 

<D 

O 

C 

C* 

0 

bfl 

PS 

& 

En 
W 
O 

< 

fe 

£ 

•O 

M 

03 

<: 

^* 

« 

CO 

"& 

-*-* 

^ 

r^ 

_Q 

1 

-a 
<d 

s 

£ 

f 

CD 

«/> 

<d 

& 

§ 

V& 

CL 

1 

REPLY 


TO 


afecBfias 


ON 


THE  NATURE,  SUBJECTS,  AND  MODE 


OF 


CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM 

BY 
JOHN  T.  PRESSLY,  D.  D. 

BY 

SAMUEL  WILLIAMS. 

PRINTED    BY   ARTHUR   A.    ANDERSON. 
1841. 


% 

PREFACE^. 

To  the  members  of  the  First  Baptized  Church  of 
Jesus  Christ  of  Pittsburgh. 

Dear  Brethren  in  the  Lord: 

Fourteen  years  ago,  I  was  called  in  ihe  Providence  of 
God,  to  the  care  of  your  souls.  At  that  time  you  were  few 
in  number,  feeble  in  resources,  and  like  your  brethren  in 
the  days  of  Paul,  "a  sect  every  where  spoken  against."  Im- 
mediately after  my  connection  with  you  in  the  pastoral  rela- 
tion, I  was  called  upon  to  maintain  the  cause  of  truth  against 
fearful  forms  of  error. 

On  various  occasions,  I  have  opposed  from  the  pulpit,  and 
now  deem  it  my  duty  to  expose  through  the  press,  the  doc- 
trine of  Rantismal  Salvation.  A  doctrine,  while  it  mutilates 
the  scheme  of  "salvation  by  grace,"  utterly  sets  aside  the  au- 
thority ol  Christ  as  Lawgiver  in  Zion,  and  wherever  it  pre- 
vails, entirely  supercedes  the  ordinance  of  Christian  Baptism. 
It  also  destroys  the  distinction  God  has  made  between  the 
church  and  the  world.  Hence,  in  all  countries  where  the 
Romish  church  is  established,  and  in  some  Protestant  prov- 
inces, all  children  are  christened  by  Ranlism, — all  of  the  in- 
habitants are  members  of  the  church,  though  they  may  be 
infidels  in  sentiment,  and  more  degraded  than  heathen  in 
morals;  and  consequently,  pure  primitive  Christianity,  both 
in  spirit  and  form,  is  almost  wholly  unknown  to  them. 

With  what  ability  and  fidelity  I  have  opposed  those  errors, 
I  leave  you  to  judge.  Of  one  thing  I  arn  certain,  that  is, 
that  God  has  unequivocally  given  to  us  the  seal  of  his  appro- 
bation, in  the  fact,  that  he  has  increased  our  number  from 
twenty. seven,  to  more  than  four  hundred,  notwithstanding 
several  churches  have  been  organized  of  members  dismissed 
from  us  for  that  purpose. 

While  we  continue  to  strive  together  for  the  faith  and 
practice  of  the  gospel  in  the  strength  of  the  Lord,  let  us  also 


IV 

cultivate  those  graces  which  adorn  the  christian  character, — 
at  once  the  fruits  of  the  Spirit,  and  a  sure  pledge  of  joys  to 
come.  Especially,  would  I  exhort  you  to  pray  with,  and  for 
your  children;  and  instruct  them  in  the  knowledge  of  eternal 
truth,  at  home  and  in  the  Sabbath  School.  Not,  from  the 
consideration  that  the  Jews  were  circumcised,  ndr  from  that 
of  vows  made  at  the  shrine  of  the  Man  of  sin,  do  I  thus  ex* 
hort  you;  but,  from  the  consideration  that  they  are  yours  by 
a  Divine  constitution,  and  because  the  Spirit  has  expressly 
commanded  you  to  "Bring  up  your  children  in  the  nurture 
and  admonition  of  the  Lord." 

Let  us  not  suppose  that  we  are  exempted  from  the  obliga- 
tion  to  engage  in  the  conflict  with  surrounding  corruption, 
because  we  have  been  buried  with  Christ  by  baptism,  after 
the  command  and  example  of  the  Redeemer,  in  preference 
to  following  the  rudiments  of  this  world,  and  the  traditions 
of  men.  No:  so  long  as  error  is  rife  in  the  land,  so  long  as 
the  sophistry  of  the  schools  is  brought  into  requisition  to 
blunt  the  edge  of  the  word  of  God,  and  while  the  mists  of 
Babylon  are  wafted  upon  (he  breeze  of  popularity,  and  being 
spread  over  the  fair  face  of  Christianity,  obscuring  the  glo- 
ries of  the  Sun  of  righteousness,  we  must  be  "valiant  for  the 
truth  in  the  earth:"  contending  earnestly,  for  the  faith  once 
delivered  to  the  saints,  and  for  the  ordinances,  unmutilated 
and  unpolluted  by  the  touch  of  man,  as  conveyed  to  us 
through  the  pure  word  of  Divine  testimony. 

For  the  author  of  the  "Lectures"  to  which  I  reply,  I  have 
no  other  feelings  than  those  of  respect  and  kindness. 

No  considerations,  however,  can  justify  the  pailiation  of 
error,  nor  apologize  for  lack  of  zeal  or  courage  in  the  main- 
tenance of  the  "truth  us  it  is  in  Jesus." 

To  contribute  something  towaids  the  victories  which 
Christ  will  achieve  over  the  kingdoms  of  darkness,  these  pa. 
ges  were  prepared,  and  are  now  presented  to  you  in  token  of 
my  affectionate  regard  for  your  welfare,  accompanied  with 
my  fervent  prayer,  that  in  the  cause  of  our  Master  you  may 
prove  "faithful  even  unto  death." 

Respectfully,  your  Pastor, 

SAMUEL  WILLIAMS. 
Pittsburgh,  May  1st,  1841. 


REPLY 


TO 


LECTURES  OH  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 


"In  vain  they  do  worship  me,  teaching  for  doc- 
trines the  commandments  of  men,'  is  a  caution,  ap- 
plied by  the  Saviour,  to  those  who,  under  religious 
pretensions,  practiced  the  inventions  of  men,  to  the 
neglect  of  the  ordinances  of  God;  and  thereby  re- 
nounced the  Divine  government,  and  nullified  the 
institutions  of  the  gospel.  To  this  declaration  of  Je- 
sus Christ,  and  to  the  greater  part  of  the  connecting 
paragraph,  I  shall  frequently  recur  in  the  course  of 
the  following  strictures. 

I  here  premise,  that  with  almost  the  whole  of  the 
first  Lecture  I  most  cordially  agree.  With  mingled 
emotions  of  joy  and  regret,  I  make  the  above  state- 
ment; considering,  as  I  do,  its  connexion  with  oth- 
ers, which  tarnish  the  beauty  of  its  sentiments;  and 
destroy,  as  I  think,  the  sacred  ordinance  that  con- 
veys emblematically  the  glorious  truths  therein  enu- 


6 

merated.  I  rejoice,  that  the  worthy  author  in  his 
first  Lecture,  so  skilfully  erects  the  superstructure  of 
salvation  on  the  "sure  foundation"  of  sovereign  mer- 
cy in  Christ  Jesus;  but,  1  deeply  regret,  that  in  the 
second,  he  proceeds  to  destroy  that  which  he  began 
to  build.  And  this,  he  does,  it  would  seem,  for  the 
purpose  of  perpetuating  a  custom  that  has  no  author- 
ity in  the  word  of  God,  and  should  be  numbered 
among  the  traditions  of  men,  which  "make  void  the 
Divine  commands."  Can  the  perpetuity  of  a  hu- 
man device,  make  amends  for  frittering  away  the 
doctrines  of  grace,  which  are  well  nigh  destroyed  al- 
ready, by  the  whittling  architects  of  mystical  Baby- 
lon? Let  every  reader  pause,  and  reflect  upon  this 
question. 

The  text  prefixed  to  Dr.  Pressly's  Lecture,  is  the 
apostolic  commission,  as  recorded  by  Mathew.  "Go 
ye,  therefore,  and  teach  all  nations,  baptizing  them 
in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the 
Holy  Ghost,"  chap.  28:  19.  According  to  the  re- 
marks of  the  Dr.,  page  25,  the  commission  specified 
no  other  subjects  of  baptism  than  believers,  and  yet 
he  undertakes  to  shew  in  Lectures  founded  upon  the 
above  text,  that  infants  are  proper  subjects  of  bap- 
tism. One  cannot  resist  the  impression  from  this 
fact,  that  either  the  Dr.  could  find  no  text  for  infant 
subjects,  or  otherwise  as  far  as  subjects  were  con- 
cerned in  his  lectures,  he  preached/row  the  text  in- 
stead of  preaching  on  it. 

Notwithstanding  he  admits  that  believers  are  the 
only  subjects  specified  in  the  6ommissionf  yet,  he 
argues  that  its  terms  do  not  prohibit  other  subjects. 
By  his  argument,  or  rather  his  sophistry,  his  admis- 
sion is  destroyed;  just  as  the  requirement  of  the  com- 


mission  is  nullified  by  his  practice.  The  fallacy  of 
his  argument  lies  in  the  assumption  of  that  which  he 
does  not  attempt  to  prove.  He  says,  that  the  infer- 
ence drawn  by  the  Baptists,  from  the  terms  of  the 
commission  is  not  valid;  and  that  such  a  principle  of 
reasoning  would  "lead  to  consequences  of  the  most 
revolting  character."  And  then  illustrates  the  charge 
by  assuming  that  faith  is  as  indispensable  to  the  sal- 
vation of  the  infant,  as  to  the  salvation  of  the  adult; 
and  that  baptism  is  as  essential  to  the  salvation  of 
the  soul  of  the  infant,  as  eating  is  to  the  life  of  the 
body.  He  refers  to  the  words  of  Paul  2d  Thess.  3: 
10,  for  illustration.  These  are  "revolting"  assump- 
tions, and  are  utterly  at  war  with  truth  and  reason. 
The  commission,  only  contemplates  those  who  are 
capable  of  believing  the  gospel. 

But,  I  cannot  impute  to  the  Dr.  the  sentiment,  that 
faith  is  as  indispensable  to  the  salvation  of  the  infant, 
as  to  that  of  the  adult.  I  therefore  suppose  the  fore- 
going assumptions,  were  made  for  the  help  of  a  bad 
case.  He  says,  "that  common  sense  would  teach 
us,  that  when  our  Lord  speaks  of  believing,  in  con- 
nection with  being  baptized,  he  has  reference  to  those 
who  are  capable  of  believing."  I  think  so  too. — 
x\nd  I  further  think,  the  same  instructer  would  teach 
us,  that  as  the  Bible  never  speaks  of  infants  in  con- 
nection with  baptism,  they  are  not  included  in  the 
law  of  baptism,  and  therefore  can  never  be  brought 
out  of  it  by  inferences,  no  more  than  a  guinea  can  be 
drawn  from  an  empty  purse. 

The  command  to  make  disciples,  baptize  believers, 
and  to  teach  the  baptized,  by  its  positive  terms,  of 
necessity,  excludes  infants.  The  gospel,  is  glad  ti- 
dings of  great  joy.     But,  to  the  unconscious  infant, 


8 

it  is  no  tidings  at  all.  Faith  comes  by  hearing.  And 
he  that  believeth  shall  be  saved.  The  Law  of  Christ 
requires  that  every  believer  should  be  baptized.  But 
it  no  more  requires  the  infant  to  be  baptised  in  order 
to  christian  obedience,  than  it  requires  faith  in  them,  in 
order  to  their  salvation.  They  are  saved  by  the  regene- 
rating and  sanctifying  grace  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  but  not 
thro'  faith  in  the  word  of  God,  or  "belief  of  the  truth. " 
Consequently,  baptism  being  enjoined  only  upon  be- 
lievers, it  has  no  application  to  them  whatever.  Nor 
does  the  perfect  work  and  complete  atonement  of 
Christ,  made  for  the  dying  infant,  need  the  touch  of 
polution,  to  make  them  more  prevalent  before  the 
Divine  Throne.  Human  devices,  formed,  to  assist 
infinite  wisdom,  and  human  hands  put  forth  to  finish 
or  add  to  the  perfection  of  the  immaculate  Redeem- 
er's work,  are  not  only  wholly  gratuitous,  but  aw- 
fully presumptuous,  especially,  when  performed  in 
the  name  of  the  sacred  Trinity. 

The  author  of  the  lectures  under  review,  often 
speaks  about  the  right  of  infants  to  baptism.  Does 
he  mean  by  this  that  it  is  a  precious  privilege?  Or 
does  he  mean  that  it  is  a  solemn  duty  ?  If,  a  favor,  or 
privilege  connected  with  salvation,  then  he  exalts  it 
to  a  point  of  importance  equal  to  that  of  faith,  receiv- 
ed in  regeneration.  Precisely  the  doctrine  of  Au- 
gustine and  the  Church  of  Rome, — Baptismal  rege- 
neration. If  a  duty,  then  it  presupposes  a  law,  pre- 
scribing that  duty;  and  it  implies,  the  exercise  of  the 
understanding,  will  and  consciousness  of  the  subject. 
But  we  have  seen,  and  Dr.  P  *  *  *  admits  that  the 
only  law  of  baptism  God  ever  gave  to  man,  does  not 
include  infants;  and  when  Peter  defines  baptism  as 
far  as  the  subject  is  concerned,  he  says  »•  it  is  not  the 


9 

washing  away  of  the  filth  of  the  flesh,  but  the  an- 
swer of  a  good  conscience  toward  God,  by  faith  in 
the  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ  from  the  dead."  Is 
the  "right  of  infants  to  baptism,"  a  favor  or  privi- 
lege that  connects  all  who  are  compelled  to  be  bap- 
tised, with  the  blood  of  the  atonement,  as  faith  does 
in  the  case  of  the  adult  ?  Then  here  is  salvation  by 
works,  and  not  of  grace,  for  none  were  ever  put  in- 
to the  covenant  of  grace,  but  those  who  are  called, 
and  remain  in  that  spiritual  relation  to  God.  The 
Dr's  doctrines  are  at  war  with  his  practice.  His 
doctrines  suspend  the  salvation  of  the  soul,  upon  the 
purpose  of  sovereign  grace  in  Christ  Jesus,  to  whom 
it  is  united  in  an  everlasting  bond  by  the  Holy  Spirit. 
Heb.  8,  9-12.  But  his  practice  seems  to  say  that 
the  soul  cannot  be  in  the  covenant, — its  interest 
not  sealed  there,  until  a  human  device  be  brought  in- 
to requisition  for  that  purpose.  Baptism  is  no  where 
in  the  Bible  called  a  seal  of  the  covenant;  nor  the 
minister  of  the  gospel,  the  agent  to  confirm  our  in- 
terest in  the  redemption  of  Christ.  Pasdobaptist 
ministers  so  call  it,  and  so  speak  of  it.  But  Paul, 
guided  by  fhe  unerring  Spirit,  says,  that  we  are  "seal- 
ed by  the  Holy  Spirit  of  promise."  Eph.  1  :  13. 
4:  30. 

Baptism,  therefore,  is  not  a  privilege  to  those  to 
whom  it  is  not  a  duty  ;  and  we  have  seen,  that  it  is 
not  a  duty  to  those  who  cannot  comprehend  its  obli- 
gation, or  conscientiously  discharge  it.  It  follows 
therefore,  irresistibly,  that  it  is  the  duty  of  those, 
and  only  those,  who  believe, — who  are  already  in  a 
state  of  salvation,  to  be  baptised.  To  such  it  is  a 
privilege  to  be  "buried  with  Christ  by  baptism;"  and 
thus,  testify  their  love  to  the   Saviour,  who  died  and 


10 

rose  again  for  them,  by  obeying  His  commandment. 
Notwithstanding  the  Dr.  admits,  p.  25,  that  the  com- 
mission, or  law  of  baptism  does  "not  afford  any  evi- 
dence of  the  right  of  infant  baptism;"  yet,  he  says, 
that  it  furnishes  no  argument  against  it.  It  is  true, 
thai  it  does  not,  in  so  many  words,  prohibit  baptism. 
That  is,  it  is  silent  on  the  subject.  He  says,  they 
are  not  included  in  it.  And  yet,  he  thinks  there  is 
an  "impassable  gulf  between''  the  premise  and  the 
conclusion.  This  is  passing  strange.  To  say  as 
little  as  possible  about  the  assumptions  of  the  Dr.  in 
order  to  make  this  "impassable  gulf,"  I  only  reply, 
that  such  logic  would  make  sad  work,  if  applied  in 
the  interpretation  of  the  principles  of  the  Divine  gov- 
ernment. For  example,  the  Saviour  commands  his 
disciples  to  partake  of  the  emblems  of  his  death.  We 
infer  from  the  terms  of  the  command,  that  infants  are 
not  proper  subjects  ot  that  ordinance,  for  the  simple 
reason,  that  they  are  notdiseipled,  or  believers.  But, 
according  to  the  Dr's  logic  there  is  an  impassable 
gulf  between  the  premise  and  the  conclusion.  Will 
he  apply  his  assumption  here,  that  the  Lord's  supper 
is  as  necessary  to  the  salvation  of  the  *oul  of  the  in- 
fant, as  eating  is  to  the  life  of  the  body  ?  Surely  it 
is  as  appropriate  here  as  any  where.  In  this  case, 
the  Dr.  is  on  one  side  of  the  "impassable  gulph"  and 
his  children  on  the  other,  for  he  does  not  admit  them 
to  the  communion,  though  all  baptised  persons  of 
good  rriorals,  in  primitive  times,  were  eligible  to  that 
ordinance. 

The  Baptists  have  their  children  with  them,  trust- 
ing in  Christ  for  their  salvation,  and  see  no  frightful 
gulf  between  the  premise  and  conclusion  in  neither 
case.     The  command  specifies  believers  as  the  pro- 


II 

per  subjects,  and  therefore,  all  others  are  prohibited 
from  the  ordinance  of  baptism.  For  them  it  was  in- 
stituted. They  alone  can  discern  its  doctrinal  im- 
port, and  apprehend  the  spiritual  blessings,  of  which 
it  is  the  appointed  emblem.  They  attend  to  it  as  a 
privilege,  because,  they  know  it  to  be  their  duty. 
And  when  they  perform  it,  having  "  answered  a 
good  conscience  toward  God,"  go  on  their  way  re- 
joicing. 

The  invariable  practice  of  ths  apostles,  affords  a 
good  comment  upon  the  correctness  of  our  conclusion, 
drawn  from  the  terms  of  the  commission.  To  sup- 
pose that  they  did  not  understand  the  nature  and  ex- 
tent of  their  duty  contained  in  the  commandment,  or 
that  they  wilfully  disregarded  its  requirements  were 
highly  absurd.  Their  administration  of  the  ordi- 
nance, therefore,  must  be  in  exact  accordance  with 
the  terms  of  the  law  prescribing  their  duty.  Accor- 
dingly, on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  "  They  that  gladly 
received  the  word,  were  baptised,''  Acts  2:  41.  The 
people  in  Samaria  "  gave  heed  to  the  things  which 
Philip  spake,''  had  greatjoy  and  "were  baptised  both 
men  an  women."  Oh!  what  an  excellent  place  here 
would  have  been,  to  have  added  children.  Luke 
could  not  make  the  addition,  however,  for  he  was 
under  the  direction  of  the  spirit  of  truth,  and  there- 
fore, would  not  misrepresent  the  apostles.  It  was 
reserved  for  the  monks  of  the  third  and  fourth  centu- 
ries to  tack  on  to  Christianity  these  inventions  of 
men,  that  now  make  "  void  the  commandment  of 
God."  See  Acts  8:  12.  Philip,  acting  under  the 
direction  of  the  "Head  of  the  church"  did  not  dare 
to  baptise  the  Eunuch,  until  he  made  a  cred'ble  pro- 
fession of  faith  in  the  Lord  Jesus,  but  complied  with 


12 

the  rule  of  his  duty.  "If  thou  believest  thou  may- 
est."  Thus  he  honors  the  Lawgiver  of  Zion,  by 
conforming  to  his  holy  will,  remembering  the  decla- 
ration of  his  Judge,  "By  my  word  shall  ye  be  judg- 
ed in  the  last  day,"  Acts  8:  37. 

Cornelius  and  his  friends,  the  first  Gentiles,  be- 
lieved the  gospel,  "spake  with  tongues,  and  magnifi- 
ed God,"  before  they  were  baptised,  Acts  10:  46. 
Lydia  the  merchant,  and  her  household  of  clerks 
were  believers  in  the  Saviour,  before  they  were  bap- 
tised, for  Paul  and  Silas  visited  them  afterward,  and 
*'  comforted  the  brethren"  with  the  promises  of  the 
gospel,  Acts  16:  40.  The  jailor  and  his  household 
"  rejoiced,  relieving  in  God."  Acts  16:  34.  Many 
of  the  Corinthians  "  hearing,  believed,  and  were 
baptised,"  and  Crispus  "  believed  in  the  Lord  with 
all  his  house"  Acts  IS:  4.  Stephanas,  and  his  house 
were  the  firs',  baptised  in  Corinth,  who  "addicted 
themselves  to  the  ministry  of  the  saints."  1  Cor.  16: 
15.  Thus,  invariably,  did  the  apostles  baptise  those, 
and  only  those, who  exercised  faith  in  Christ,  in  obe- 
dience to  their  ascended  Lord.  "  He  that  believcth 
and  is  baptised."  They  did  not  presume  to  reverse 
the  order  of  the  Divine  law,  in  order  to  violate  its 
holy  requisitions.  In  all  congregations  and  commu- 
nities of  Paedcbaptists,  believes  baptism  is  supersed- 
ed, by  the  violation  of  the  law,  specifying  the  re- 
quisite qualification  in  the  subject,  and  guiding  the 
administration  of  the  ordinance.  For  if  they  bap- 
tise or  rantise  the  child  (as  the  case  may  be)  then 
they  do  not  baptise  him,  though  he  afterwards  be- 
lieve. We  may  safely  take  our  stand  upon  the 
ground,  that  the  requirement  of  the  law  of  baptism, 
implies  the   exclusion  of  those,  who  do  not  possess 


13 

the  necessary  qualification  for  the  ordinance,  as  ne- 
cessarily as  the  prohibition  of  any  sin,  implies  the 
requirement  of  a  corresponding  duty  ;  and  that  the 
apostles,  guided  and  controlled,  by  the  unerring  spir- 
it, always  required  evidence  of  faith  in  the  candi- 
dates before  baptising  them  ;  and  then  defy  the 
world  to  move  us  from  our  position.  Mere  assump- 
tions will  never  separate  just  conclusions  Irom  sound 
premises.  Faith,  in  a  preached  gospel,  incompre- 
hensible of  course  to  the  infant,  is  essential  to  its 
salvation,  as  to  the  salvation  of  the  adult !  Baptism, 
as  necessary  to  the  salvation  of  the  soul  of  the  infant, 
as  eating  is  to  the  preservation  of  its  body  !  What 
doctrines  these  are  !  Doctrines  of  popery;  only  as- 
sumed by  protestants,  for  the  purpose  of  upholding 
the  strongest  pillar  of  that  execraMe  system  !  Veri- 
ly, this  popgun  of  sophistry,  must  lay  very  near  the 
door  of  Peter  Edward's  Magazine,  or  so  many  Pse- 
dobaptist  disputants  would  not  come  out  to  the  field 
with  the  same  poor  weapon.  Every  intelligent  and 
affectionate  disciple  of  our  Lord,  will  feel  himself  as 
secure  against  such  weapons,  while  standing  upon 
the  above  proposition,  supported  as  it  is,  by  the 
whole  history  of  apostolic  practice,  as  Sampson  did 
against  the  cords  of  the  Philistines,  when  clothed 
with  the  power  of  the  Omnipotent,  and  standing  in 
the  top  of  the  rock  Etam. 

The  first  argument  the  Dr.  offers,  after  attempt- 
ing to  sophisticate  away  the  terms  and  exclusive 
claims  of  the  commission,  is  from  the  supposed  iden- 
tity of  the  Jewish  and  Christian  church.  To  every 
intelligent  mind,  the  notion,  that  a  New  Testament 
ordinance  is  to  be  learned  from  the  Old  Testament 
writings,  must  seem,  to  say  the  least,  very  singular. 


14 

It  is  just  like  going  to  the  commission  for  infant  sub- 
jects.    It  is  singular,  because,  the  ordinance  is  not 
there!     It  had  no  being  until  a  "man  was  sent  from 
God,  whose  name  was  John,"  to  commence  it,  in 
"the  beginning  of  the  gospel  of  the  Son  of  God," 
Mark  1:  1 — 4.     It  is  going  to  the  Jewish  dispensa- 
tion to  ascertain  a  duly  connected  with  the  Chris- 
tian dispensation.     And  we  greatly  doubt  whether 
an  instrutor  of  Theology  would   stake  his    reputa- 
tion upon  the  issue  of  any  other  question,  with  no 
better  arguments  for  its  support  than  those  drawn 
from  a  source  that  is  silent  on  the  subject.     Dr.  Ma- 
son, in  an  argument  for  a  mixed  church,  said,  that 
"it  contributed  directly  to  her  prosperity,  by  extend- 
ing her  resources,  and  by  increasing  her  numbers. — 
Her  resources  are  increased  by  pecuniary  aid,  and 
the  aid  of  talents."     This  is  a  weighty  argument, 
for  money  is  almost  always  more  influentialthan  the 
truth.     And    Dr.  Mason  may  have  been  honest  in 
using  it.     Still,  it  was  founded  on  policy,  and  not  on 
fact.     It  can  never  be  shown  that  the  Jewish  nation 
and  the  Kingdom  of  Christ  are  the  same.     That  the 
Jews  were  under  the  government  of  God  and  many 
of  them  pious,  I  do  not  deny.     But  I  do  deny,  that 
the  constitution  of  the  Jewish  theocracy  and  that  of 
the  Christian  church  are  one.     The  very  first  argu- 
ment adduced  by    the  Dr.,   destroys  itself.     For  if 
children  of  believers  were  constituted  members  be- 
cause they  were  members,  then  circumcision  did  not 
make  them  members,  for  the  Dr.  contends  that  the 
children  are  not  members  until  baptized;  but  if  bap- 
tism, the  initiating  ordinance  of  the  Christian  church, 
comes  in  the  room  of  circumcision,  then  the  Jewish 
and  Christian  churches  are  not  the  same;  for,  as  we 


15 

have  seen,  the  children  were  members  of  that  church 
by  birth,  and  not  by  circumcision.  Another  discre- 
pancy in  his  argument  is,  that  he  does  not  include 
servants  with  children,  for  they  were  equally  eligi- 
ble to  the  precious  "privilege,"  (according  to  the 
covenant  made  with  Abraham,)  which  made  Zippo- 
rah  say  to  Moses  when  she  circumcised  her  son,  "a 
bloody  husband  art  thou  to  me,  a  bloody  husband, 
because  of  the  circumcision,"  Ex.  4:  27.  So  that 
instead  of  lamenting  an  abridgement  of  privileges  un- 
der the  gospel  dispensation,  servants,  children,  and 
parents,  all,  may  well  rejoice  that  the  old  burden  of 
bloody  circumcision  is  not  imposed  upon  us — Gen- 
tiles. Priests  were  not  required  to  administer  the 
ordinance  of  circumcision;  and,  therefore,  unless  they 
be  parents,  they  need  not  be  concerned.  In  case  a 
Priest  cannot  be  obtained  in  the  Romish  church  to 
administer  the  substitute,  and  the  child  should  be  in 
imminent  danger  of  death,  the  parent  or  neighbor 
may  perform  the  sealing  operation. 

The  chief  privilege  they  enjoyed,  we,  without  dis- 
tinction, enjoy.  Unto  us.  as  well  as  unto  them,  is 
committed  the  oracles  of  God;  so  that  our  children 
may  be  brought  up  in  the  nurture  and  admonition  of 
the  Lord,  and  become  children  of  Abraham  by  faith 
in  the  Lord  Jesus,  the  promised  Seed,  in  whom  all 
the  promises  are  yea  and  Amen. 

The  covenant  made  with  Abraham,  recorded  Gen. 
17,  is  the  one  from  which  our  Paedobaptist  brethren 
get  their  principal  argument.  It  includes  two  things, 
a  promise  to  be  a  God  to  Abraham  and  his  seed,  and 
one  to  give  the  land  of  Canaan.  Although  Canaan 
was  to  be  an  everlasting  possession,  and  circumci- 
sion was  to  be  in  their  flesh  for  an  everlasting  cove- 


16 

nant-  yet,  our  brethren,  who  claim  the  blessings  of 
this  covenant  on  account  of  the  identity  of  the  Jew- 
ish and  Christian  churches,  do  not  lay  claim  to  their 
inheritance  in  Canaan,  nor  do  they  attend  to  the  ev- 
erlasting mark  which  every  child  of  the  covenant  was 
to  have  made  in  his  flesh.  We  are  Gentiles,  I  seem 
to  hear  some  one  say,  and  not  the  natural  seed  of 
Abraham.  If,  then,  the  spiritual  seed,  only,  are  in- 
terested, Paul  explains  it  in  a  few  words —  'If  ye  be 
Christ's  then  are  ye  Abraham's  seed  and  heirs  accor- 
ding to  the  promise."  In  neither  case  can  unbe- 
lieving children  of  Gentiles  obtain  a  place — neither  in 
the  land  of  Canaan  nor  in  the  church.  Nor  can 
they  from  the  terms  of  the  covenant  be  either  cir- 
cnmcised  or  baptized. 

The  great  mistake  with  many  seems  to  be,  that 
they  suppose  they  bear  the  same  relation  to  Abra- 
ham that  the  Jews,  his  natural  descendants,  do;  and, 
therefore,  they  are  entitled  to  the  same  promises  and 
privileges  with  them.  When  it  comes  to  the  seal, 
or  token,  then  they  tell  us  it  is  changed.  But,  nev- 
er do  they  point  to  the  passage  in  the  Bible  to  prove 
it.  No:  the  proof  of  this  is  to  be  found  in  naked  as- 
sertion, catechisms,  treatises,  and  traditions  receiv- 
ed from  the  councils  of  the  church  of  Rome. 

Abraham  is  the  father  of  all  the  faithful,  not  as  a 
natural  ancestor,  but  as  an  eminent  model  of  faith  in 
God.  Much  in  the  same  sense  that  Tubal  Cain  is 
the  father  of  all  artificers  in  brass  or  iron.  And  as 
it  regards  the  sign  of  circumcision,  it  is  not  a  seal, 
nor  ever  has  been,  to  any  other  than  Abraham  him- 
self. To  him,  it  was  a  seal  of  the  righteousness 
which  he  had  long  before  it  was  imprinted  upon  him, 
for  the  express  purpose  of  designating  him  as  the 


17 

father,  or  example,  of  all  them  that  believe,  without 
respect  to  natural  generation,  and  also  without  res- 
pect to  circumcision  or  uncircumcision.  Rom.  4: 
11—13,  Gal.  3:  29. 

The  Jews,  the  natural  seed,  were  not  permitted  to 
enter  the  kingdom  of  Christ  without  repentance  and 
faith.  The  Pharisees  urged  the  plea  that  Abraham 
was  their  father,  but  John  insisted  on  it,  that  proxy 
faith  would  not  answer  in  the  spiritual,  discrimina- 
ting kingdom  of  the  Redeemer.  "Every  tree  that 
bringelh  not  forth  good  fruit  is  hewn  down  and  cast 
into  the  fire,"  Math.  3:  10.  Whether  they  thought 
the  Jewish  nation  was  the  same  with  the  kingdom 
of  Christ,  and  that  because  they  were  the  descend- 
ants of  Abraham,  they  had  an  undoubted  right  to  the 
blessings  of  the  church  of  Christ,  it  does  not  positive- 
ly say.  It  would  seem,  from  this  and  other  passa- 
ges, that  they  had  much  the  same  views  with  our  Pob- 
dobaptist  brethren,  with  this  addition,  they  thought 
that  as  the  Gentile  converts  pretended  to  be  the  chil- 
dren of  Abraham,  they  ought  to  be  circumcised, 
as  that  was  the  law  and  token  of  that  everlasting  cov- 
enant! They  urged  this  matter  so  far  that  the  Apos- 
tles were  obliged  to  meet  in  consultation  upon  the 
subject  at  Jerusalem.  It  is  worthy  of  remark,  that 
at  that  council  called  to  deliberate  on  the  subject  of 
circumcision,  instead  of  the  Apostles  urging  in  be- 
half of  the  Gentiles,  that  they  had  in  baptism  attend- 
ed to  the  law  of  the  covenant,  they  never  speak  of 
baptism  at  all,  nor  do  they  yield  to  the  clamors  of  the 
Jews  about  the  obligations  of  the  covenant  made 
with  Abraham,  the  uncircumcision  of  the  Gentiles, 
&c.  And  not  a  single  word  do  they  say  about  bap- 
tism coming  in  the  room  of  circumcision.  On  the 
2 


18 

supposition  that  this  was  the  case,  their  silence  is  un- 
accountable, Acts  15:  1 — 22. 

Abraham  is  called  by  Paul  a  good  olive  tree,  be- 
cause he  received  along  with  promises  of  temporal 
blessings  for  the  Jewish  nation  enmasse,  promises  of 
spiritual  blessings  for  all  believers  in  Christ,  the 
seed  of  promise,  Rom.  11:  13 — 34,  Gal.  3:  16. 
See  Dr.  McKnight,  in  Loco. 

This  is  in  accordance  with  the  nature  of  that  dis- 
pensation. It  was  typical.  The  gospel  was  preach- 
ed through  the  types  to  Abraham.  All  of  the  tempo- 
ral blessings  of  the  Jews  were  typical  of  the  spiritual 
blessings  which  believers  now  enjoy.  And  hence 
the  complex  character  of  some  of  the  promises. — 
Their  primary  application  was  to  the  natural  seed, 
and  related  to  their  temporal  privileges.  Their  sec- 
ondary application  is  to  all  the  spiritual  seed  of  Christ, 
the  children  of  Abraham  by  faith,  aud  relate  to  their 
spiritual  blessings,  of  which  the  temple  with  all  its 
ceremonies,  circumcision,  &c.  &c.  are  all  typical. 
Circumcision  was  a  type  of  the  new  birth,  not  of 
baptism.  The  Paschal  lamb  was  typical  of  the 
atonement  of  Christ,  not  of  the  Lord's  supper.  The 
connection  of  the  Jews  with  natural  Abraham  in  the 
covenant. of  circumcision,  under  the  figure  of  the  ol- 
ive tree  and  branches,  was  typical  of  the  connection 
between  believers  in  Christ  with  faithful  Abraham. 
The  Jews  were  broken  off  by  unbelief,  and  the  be- 
lieving Gentiles  and  Jews  are  grafted  in  by  faith, 
or  regeneration,  of  which  circumcision  was  the  type, 
Gal.  5:  1—6. 

The  Jewish  kingdom  or  church  was  by  no  means 
the  same  with  the  kingdom  or  church  of  Christ. — 
Daniel  prophesied  of  the  kingdom  of  God  which 


10 


should  be  set  up  in  the  days  of  the  Caesars,  unlike 
all  others  which  preceded  it,  spiritual  in  its  nature, 
and  eternal  in  its  duration.  Dan.  2.  44.  Into  which 
none  were  admitted  without  fruits  worthy  of  repent- 
ance, and  faith  in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  Math.  3. 
Acts  2.  The  Jews  were  enraged  at  the  Saviour  be- 
cause he  did  not  consent  to  their  views  of  the  Na- 
tion, and  deliver  them  from  the  Roman  yoke,  and  at 
last  crucified  him.  His  kingdom  and  theirs,  the 
same!  From  the  haughty  children  of  Abraham,  the 
circumcised  subjects  of  the  Jewish  kingdom,  He  tur- 
ned away  in  disgust,  after  having  told  them  that  they 
were  of  their  father  the  Devil,  and  said  to  his  little 
band  of  disciples,  "Fear  not,  little  flock,  it  is  your 
father's  good  pleasure  to  give  you  the  kingdom." 
"As  many  as  received  him,  to  them  gave  he  power 
lo  become  the  sons  ot  God,  even  to  them  that  believe 
on  his  name;  which  were  born,  not  of  blood,  nor  of 
the  will  (f  the  flesh,  nor  of  the  will  of  man,  but  of 
Gob."  John  1:  12—13. 

The  reader  may  clearly  see  the  difference  between 
the  covenant  of  circumcision  and  the  covenant  of 
grace.  They  were  both  included  in  the  promise 
made  to  Abraham  in  the  covenant  recorded  in  Gen. 
17,  and  are  spoken  of  by  Paul  in  Gal.  4,  and  Heb. 
8th  and  9th  chapters.     Here  is  the  contrast. 

ABRAHAMIC  COVENANT. 


OLD    COVENANT. 

The  old  covenant  was  only 
a  temporal  relation  betwixl 
God  and  a  particular  nation, 
which  is  now  done  away  and 
come  to  an  end;  Heb.  8:  13. 


NEW  COVENANT. 
1.  The  new  covenant  is  an 
eternal  relation  betwixt  God 
and  his  people  from  among  all 
nations,  and  is  therefore  call- 
ed  an  everlasting  covenat.  Heb 
13:  20. 


20 


II.  The  old  covenant  was 
carnal  and  earthly: 

1.  In  its  worship,  which 
stood  only  in  meats  and  drinks 
and  divers  washings,  and  car- 
nal ordinances,  Heb,  9:  10. 

2.  In  its  sacrifices  of  bulls 
and  goats,  which  could  never 
take  away  sin,  or  purge  the 
conscience.  Heb.  9;  9,  and  10: 
4. 

3.  In  its  mediator,  viz:  Mo- 
ses. Gal-  3:  19. 

4.  In  its  priests,  viz:  Aaron 
and  his  sons,  who  were  sinful 
men,  and  not  suffered  to  con- 
tinue by  reason  of  death.  Heb. 
7:  23—28 

5.  In  its  sanctuary,  which 


was    worldly  and  made 
hands.  Heb.  9:  1—24. 


II.  The  new  covenant  is 
piritual  and  heavenly. 

1  In  its  worship,  which  re- 
quires a  true  heart,  faith,  and 
a  good  conscience,  and  to  be 
performed  in  spirit  and  truth, 
Heb  10:  19—  23,  John  4:  23. 

2  In  its  sacrifice,  which  is 
Christ,  and  which  perfects 
forever  them  that  are  sancti- 
fied, Heb  10:  14. 

3  In  its  media  tor, \\z:  Christ 
Jesus,  Heb  12.24. 

4  In  its  priest,  viz:  Christ, 
who  is  holy,  harmless,  &c.  and 
abidelh  priest  continually,  ev- 
er living  to  make  intercession 
for  us,  Heb  7:  24—26. 

5  In  its  sanctuary,    which 


6.  In  its  promises;  they  be 
ing  worldly  blessings  in  earth 
ly  places,  and  respecting  only 
a  prosperous  life  in  the  earth 
ly  Canaan.  Deut.  28:  1—15, 
Is.  1:  19,  Josh.  21:  43—45, 
and  23:  14—16. 

7.  In  its  subjects,  or  peo 
pie  covenented;  they  being 
the  fleshly  seed  of  Abraham 
children  of  the  temporal  prom 
ise,  related  to  God  as  his  typ 
ical  people,  and  to  Christ  as 
his  kinsman  according  to  the 
flesh;  which  typical  and  flesh- 
ly relation  availed  them  much 
for  the  enjoyment  of  the  typi- 


withlis  heaven  itself,  whereinto  our 
great  High  Priest  hath  enter- 
ed, having  obtained  an  eternal 
redemption  for  us,  Heb  9:  12. 

6  In  its  promises:  they  be- 
ing spiritual  blessings  in  hea- 
venly places,  and  chiefly  res- 
pecting the  life  to  come,  and 
the  enjovment  of  the  heaven- 
ly  inheritance,  Eph  1:3,  Tit 
1:2,  Heb  8;  6,  and  11:16. 

7  In  its  subjects;  they  being 
the  spiritual  seed  of  Abraham, 
typified  by  the  fleshly  seed; 
being  chosen  in  Christ  before 
the  foundation  of  the  world; 
predestinated  unto  the  adop- 
tion of  children,  and  redeemed 
by  the  blood  of  Christ.  These 
are  the  children  of  the  prom- 
ise, who,  in  God's  appointed 


21 


cal  and  earthly  privileges  of'time,  are  born,  not  of  blood, 
this  covenant;  but  as  HagarJnor  of  the  will  ot  the  flesh, 
the  bond  woman,  was  cast  out  nor  of  the  will  of  man,  but  of 
with  her  son  born  a  fter    the  God:  being  born  ngain,  not  of 


flesh,  so  the  covenant  itself 
being-  antiquated,  its  temporal, 
typical,  privileges  vanished,  its 
subjects  cast  out  and  disinher 
ited;  the  fleshly  relation  upon 
which  they  received  circum 
cision,  availed  nothing  for 
their  partaking  of  spiritual 
privileges,  nor  were  they,  as 
children  of  this  covenant,  ad- 
mitted heirs  with  the  children 
of  the  free  woman,  or  new  cov- 
enant, Rom  9:  4—9,  Gal  6: 
15,  and  4:22-23. 

Will  our  Psedobaptist  breth- 
eren  in  despite  of  the  declara 
tions  of  immutable  truth,  and 
all  our  entreaties  persist  in 
claiming  relationship  to  Abra- 
ham through  Hagar,  and  te- 
naciously cling  to  the  old 
covenant? 


corruptible  seed,  but  of  incor- 
ruptible, even  by  the  word  of 
God,  which  livethand  abideth 
forever:  who  have  the  law  of 
God  written  in  their  hearts, 
and  all  know  him  from  the 
least  to  the  greatest.  Through 
this  work  of  the  Spirit,  they 
believe  in  the  name  of  the  Son 
of  God,  and  by  the  profession 
of  this  their  faith,  they  appear 
to  be  the  seed  of  Abraham, 
children  of  the  free  woman, 
nd  heirs  according  to  the 
promise,  to  whom  belong  all 
spiritual  privileges,  and  bap- 
tism among  the  rest  Eph  1: 
5,  1st  Peter  1:  18—19, 
John  1:  13,  1st  Peter  1:  23, 
Heb  8r  10:  11,  Gal  3:26—29, 
ind  4:28— 31,  Acts  2:  41-42. 


From  the  above  contrast  it  appears  that  the  old 
covenant  together  with  the  things  appertaining  to  it, 
were  only  earthly  patterns  of  things  in  the  heavens, 
Heb.  9:  23, — figures  for  that  time,  ver  2 — shadows 
of  good  things  to  come,  Heb.  10:  1,  imposed  upon 
typical  Israel  until  the  time  of  reformation,  chap  10: 
10,  under  which  they  were  shut  up  to  the  faith  that 
should  afterwards  be  revealed,  Gal.  3:  23.  So  that 
aside  from  their  typical  reference,  there  was  nothing 
spiritual  or  heavenly  in  them.  And  as  this  cove- 
nant was  typical  and  earthly,  so  were  the  covenant- 


22 

ed  people.  In  order  to  enjoy  its  privileges  it  was 
not  necessary  for  them  to  be  regenerated  or  believe 
in  Christ.  If  they  were  the  fleshly  seed,  and  were 
circumcised,  they  were  members  in  good  standing  in 
that  typical  church  or  nation,  though  they  should  be 
worshippers  of  idols,  as  many  of  them  were. 

Though  some  of  the  fleshly  Israel  were  of  the 
spiritual  Israel,  they  were  not  so  by  their  fleshly  re- 
lation to  Abraham,  nor  by  the  temporal  promise  con- 
cerning his  natural  seed,  to  which  circumcision  be- 
longed; but  by  faith,  through  grace,  in  the  notable 
Seed,  the  Mediator  of  the  new  covenant,  of  which 
their  fleshly  relation  and  temporal  covenant  were  but 
types,  or  were  earthlv  patterns,  Rom.  11:  5 — 7, 
Heb.  11.  13—39,  40. 

Unless  we  keep  the  distinction  clearly  drawn1, 
while  running  the  parallel  between  Abraham's  two- 
fold seed,  we  shall  confound  those  born  of  the  flesh 
with  those  born  of  the  Spirit.  Whether  our  Peedo- 
baptist  brethren  mistake  this  matter  altogether,  or 
whether  they  multiply  words  to  confound  this  doc- 
trine, we  cannot  say.  It  is  very  certain,  that  type 
and  antitype  hold  the  same  proportion  with  flesh 
and  spirit,  shadow  and  substance,  earth  and  heaven; 
and  therefore,  the  distinction  between  the  two-fold 
seed,  must  be  observed.  Now,  the  whole  argument 
of  the  Dr.  runs  upon  the  supposition,  that  the  flesh- 
ly seed  of  New  Testament  believers  are  as  really 
the  spiritual  seed  of  Abraham  as  the  infants  of  old 
Israel  were  his  fleshly  seed.  This  is  an  absurd  sup- 
position !  A  premise  without  the  shadow  of  proof ! 
A  mere  assumption  on  which  men  have  builded  a 
Jewish  Gentile  church  state  ;  such  as  infidel 
France — superstitious  Italy — bloody  Spain,  &c.  &c, 


23 

wherever,  in  short,  the  barrier  that  Christ  set  up  be- 
tween his  church  and  the  world,  has  been  broken 
down,  by  the  influence  of  this  doctrine.  Hence, 
the  confusion  manifest  in  the  reasoning  of  the  advo- 
cates of  this  system.  Sometimes  they  argue  that 
the  children  of  believers  should  be  baptised,  be- 
cause they  are  the  children  of  believers,  and  there- 
fore members  of  the  church  ;  then,  perhaps,  in  the 
next  paragraph,  they  contend  that  they  should  be 
baptised  to  initiate  them  into  the  church.  So  that 
one  destroys  the  other.  For.  if  members  by  birth, 
then  baptism  does  not  initiate  them  into  the  church. 
If  they  become  so  by  baptism,  then  they  are  not 
such  by  birth.  These  phrases  are  used  alternately 
by  the  Dr.,  with  great  frequency,  as  though  he  sup- 
posed his  hearers  and  readers  would  accept  of  them 
as  synonymous  in  logic,  well  established  premises, 
or  correctly  drawn  conclusions,  notwithstanding 
they  devour  each  other,  in  toto.  If  the  fleshly  seed 
of  Abraham  typified  the  fleshly  seed  of  believing 
Gentiles,  then,  the  spiritual  seed — the  true  antitype, 
are  superceded  by  the  fleshly  seed  of  the  Gentiles — 
or  in  other  words,  this  would  destroy  the  distinction 
between  the  type  and  antitype.  Upon  the  above 
supposition,  the  typical  beasts  offered  in  sacrifice, 
under  the  former  dispensation,  must  have  antitypes 
under  the  gospel,  in  kind  and  character  with  them- 
selves. Unless  this  is  admitted,  it  follows  undenia- 
bly that  the  natural  seed  of  Abraham,  born  of  the 
flesh  according  to  the  temporal  promise,  typified  his 
spiritual  seed,  bom  of  the  Spirit  according  to  the 
promise  of  the  New  Testament.  The  conclusion  is 
triumphant  that  baptism  belongs  only  to  the  spiritual 
seed  of  Abraham,  whether  they  be  Jews  or  Gentiles. 


24 

14  If  they  are  Christ's,  then  are  they  Abraham's  seed, 
and  heirs  according  to  the  promise."  *'  He  that 
believeth  and  is  baptised,  shall  be  saved,"  whether 
Abraham  or  Cornelius  be  his  fleshly  father,  or  not. 

The  spiritual  seed  are  distinguished  from  the 
world,  and  their  right  to  the  ordinance  of  baptism 
established  by  the  following  considerations,  in  addi- 
tion to  the  express  and  definite  command  of  Christ  : 

1.  The  fleshly  birth  of  the  natural  and  spiritual 
seed  of  Abraham  are  common  to  both,  and  therefore 
it  does  not  distinguish  them. 

2.  Without  the  character  of  the  sons  of  God,  they 
are  not  the  spiritual  seed  ;  but  *«  being  born  of  blood, 
of  the  will  of  the  flesh,  and  of  the  will  of  man,"  (as 
are  the  infants  of  believers  as  well  as  others)  does 
not  give  that  character — therefore,  only  believers 
are  subjects  of  baptism.  John  1  :   13. 

3.  The  spiritual  birth  has  no  necessary  connection 
neither  natural  nor  federal,  with  the  fleshly  birth, 
therefore,  the  former  can  never  be  inferred  from  the 
latter.  It  is  the  result  of  election,  and  not  of  earthly 
relationship.  Naturally,  we  are  children  of  wrath. 
Nor  have  we  as  spiritual  seed,  any  federal  connec- 
tion with  the  fleshly  birth.  For  the  new  covenant 
is  not  made  with  the  natural  seed  of  believers,  as  the 
old  temporal  covenant  was  with  the  fleshly  seed  of 
Abraham. 

4.  The  natural  seed  of  believers  can  no  more  be 
counted  the  spiritual  seed,  than  the  natural  seed  of 
Abraham  ;  and  the  Apostle  says,  that  they  are  not 
according  to  the  flesh  "  accounted  for  the  seed." 

5.  Observation  proves,  that  some  of  the  natural 
seed  of  believers  become  spiritual,  but  it  also  proves 
that  the  children  of  infidels  become  Christians.     It 


25 


proves  too,  that  some  of  the  children  of  both  are  car- 
nal, impenitent,  and  die  in  their  sins.  Therefore, 
christening  does  the  latter  no  good;  while  baptism 
is  the  duty  and  privilege  of  all  who  believe. 

6.  If  the  above  proposition  be  correct,  then  it  fol- 
lows that  no  judgment  can  be  formed  of  the  charac- 
ter and  destiny  of  men  either  from  the  faith  or  infide- 
lity of  their  parents.  And  therefore,  baptism  belongs 
only  to  those  described  in  the  command.  From  the 
nature  of  the  institutions  of  circumcision  and  baptism, 
it  is  utterly  impossible  that  one  could  be  placed  in 
the  room  of  the  other.  They  are  totally  dissimilar, 
— they  agree  in  nothing  more  than  any  other  two 
things,  of  which  we  can  form  a  conception.  That 
this  may  be  obvious  to  every  eye,  prejudiced  or  not, 
I  here  present  the  contrast  in  the  juxtaposition  of  the 
ordinances. 


CIRCUMCISION. 

1.  Circumcision    was    ex- 
pressly limited  to  males. 

2.  Circumcision  required  no 


EAPTISM. 

1.  The  Baptismal  institution 
includes  both  men  and  wo?nen. 

2.  The  gospel  requires  this 
previous  profession  offaith  andprofession    without   exception 


repentance. 

3.  Circumcision  did  not  de- 
note the  death,  burial,  and  re 
surrection  ot  Jesus  Christ. 

4.  Circumcision  belonged  to 
Abraham's  family,  either  na 
tural  or  adopted. 

5.  This   was  to  be    done  on 
the  eight  day  precisely. 

6.  Infants  were  commanded 
to  be  circumcised. 


to  age,  parentage,  or  eireum. 
stance. 

3.  "  We  are  buried  with 
Christ  by  baptism,"  and  rise 
with  him  in  the  same. 

4.  Baptism  belongs  to  be- 
lievers of  all  nations,  and  is 
not  in  this  respect  a  wall  of 
partition. 

5.  Baptism  is  to  be  perform- 
ed  at  any  time  that  men  be- 
lieve. 

6.  Infants  are  no  where 
commanded  to  be  baptised. 


28 


7.  The   Bible   never   calls 
circumcision,  baptism. 

8.  A  male    servant,  bought 
with  money,  whether  an  athe 


7.  The    Bible   never   calls 
baptism,  circumcision. 

8.  Baptism    is    applied    to 
none  but  those  who  believe — 


istoc  believer  was  to  be  subject  who  are  made   "  free    by  -the 


to  the  rite  as  well  as  the  seed 

9.  It  was  a  painful— bloody 
rite,  not  performed  on  the  face 
or  forehead. 

10.  It  was  administered  by 
either  of  the  heads-of  the  fami- 
ly, and  not  by  priests. 

11.  The  uncircumcised  were 
not  permitted  to  mingle  with 


Son,"    and    profe-s    faith   for 
themselves  in  his  name. 

9.  Baptism  is  neither  the 
one  nor  the  other,  but  simply 
an  immersion  in  water, 

10.  Baptism,  is  to  be  admi- 
nistered by  those  only  who 
are  qualified  and  commissioned 
to  preach. 

11  No    such   distinction   is 

made  by  the  law  of  baptism. 

the    worshippers    under    that  The  gospei  is   to  be  preached 


unto  all. 

12  But  baptism  does  not 
prohibit  this,— it  rathsr  encou- 
rages it. 

13  Baptism  is  obligatory 
on  the  subject.     He  must  not 

repent    and    be 


dispensation. 

12.  It  forbade  the  usual  ci 
vilities  of  social  life  to  the  un- 
circumcised. 

13.  It  was  a  duty  not  bind- 
ing  on  the    child,  but  on  the 
parent.     It  was  an  act  of  thelbe    neutral, 
parent.     The  child    was   neu    baptised." 
tral.  J 

J  4.  Circumcision  required  14  If  baptsm  be  the  substi- 
no  faith  in  the  parent  to  entitle  tute  now,  the  privileges  of  in- 
the  child  to  this  ordinance.  Itfants  are  greatly  abridged,  for 
was  done  to  the  child  irrespec-jmu'tiludes  go  without,  on  ac- 
tive of  the  moral  character  of  count  of  new  regulations  in 
the  parent.  iJudaized  Churches. 

15  It  was  not  performed  as!  15  Baptism  is  a  religious, 
an  act  of  worship  in  the  name  solemn  act  of  worship  render- 
of  the  Trinity,  but  merely  as  a  ed  to  God,  and  administered 
token  or  a  sign  of  a  covenant  in  the  name  of  the  Father, 
between  Cod  and  the  family  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost, 
of  Abraham. 

16.  It  imported  that  those]  16.  But  baptism  does  not 
who  received  it  were  entitled  to  import  that  its  subjects  shall 
all  the  promises  made  to  Ab-I 


27 

raham  concerning  his  natural  enjoy  any  such  temporal  bles- 
seed.  .sings. 

17.  The  Jews  who  had  re-  17.  Those,  now,  who  ire 
ceived  this  rite  were  not  ex-  baptised  or  rantised  by  infer- 
empt  from  baptism  when  they  ence  from  the  law  of  circum- 
believed,  and  therefore  the  lat-jcision,  ought  to  be  baptised 
ler  could  not  have  come  in  the'when  they  believe,  in  obedi- 
room  of  the  former.  They  ence  to  the  command  of  Christ, 
were  not  sealed  twice. 

Under  the  Jewish  dispensation,  Jehovah  adminis- 
tered a  moral  government  by  a  system  of  external 
law, — moral,  ceremonial  and  judicial;  which  embo- 
died the  same  principles  of  justice  and  mercy  that 
are  more  fully  presented  in  the  gospel  dispensation  ; 
and  (raced  by  the  hand  of  the  Spirit,  not  on  tables  of 
stone,  but  on  fleshly  tables  of  the  heart.  Hence,  the 
latter  is  called  the  ministration  of  the  Spirit,  which 
is  more  glorious  than  the  ministration  of  law  that  was 
"  done  away"  and  abolished.  2  Cor.  3:  7-17. 

Though,  our  brethren  admit  that  the  ceremonial 
law  was  abolished,  and  therefore  not  obligatory  upon 
Christians,  yet,  they  fancy  there  must  be  something 
in  the  room,  at  least  of  one  of  them.  One  seems  to 
spring  somehow  from  the  ashes  of  the  other,  The 
former  abolished,  nailed  to  the  cross, — i.  e.  crucified, 
dead,  and  yet,  still  living  !  The  law  of  circumcision 
still  living  and  in  force  !  What  is  still  more  wonder- 
ful, is,  tiiat  they  infer  infant  baptism  from  it,  and 
suppose,  that  this  meets  the  claims  of  that  law  ! 
Jonah,  was  certainly  as  near  going  to  Ninevah  while 
on  his  way  to  Tarshish,  as  our  brethren  are  to  the 
fulfilment  of  the  law  of  circumcision,  when  they  bap- 
tise their  children. 

Furthermore,  if  the  two  dispensations  are  one,  if 
the  Jewish  nation  and  the  kingdom  of  Christ  are  the 


28 

same,  if  the  congregation  of  Israel  and  the  churches 
of  Christ  are  identical,  it  follows,  that  the  Pharisees, 
after  all,  were  right,  in  requiring  believers  in  the 
days  of  the  Apostles,  to  be  circumcised  and  keep  the 
law  of  Moses. 

But  Dr.  P.,  says  p.  37,  that  "  though  one  sign  of 
this  relation  has  been  abolished,  another  has  been  ap- 
pointed," and  that  "  He  who  appointed  circumcision 
to  be  the  sign  of  his  covenant  under  the  former  dis- 
pensation, has  under  the  milder  dispensation  of  the 
gospel  appointed  baptism."  Now,  why  does  the 
Dr.  so  adroitly  shuffle  from  the  point  ?  Why  did 
he  not  add  "  baptism  to  be  the  sign  of  the  covenant 
under  this  dispensation  ;  and  then  produce  one  text 
to  prove  that  it  came  in  the  room  of  circumcision? 
This  he  well  knew  he  could  not  do.  Words  may 
be  multiplied  to  equal  the  stars  in  the  sky,  but  one 
proof  is  worth  more  than  all  of  them,  where  religi- 
ous duty  and  the  honor  of  God  are  involved. 

On  p.  44,  the  Dr.  argues  that  because  a  change  of 
heart,  the  spiritual  circumcision,  is  the  antitype  of 
the  fleshly  circumcision,  therefore  baptism  came  in 
its  room.  This  unwarrantable  mode  of  arguing  would 
destroy  the  whole  of  the  typical  system,  if  followed 
out.  If  baptism  is  the  antitype  of  circumcision,  then 
regeneration  is  not ;  and  then  it  would  follow,  that 
circumcision  was  a  type  of  a  type,  a  shadow  of  a 
shadow  !  In  opposition  to  this,  Paul  declares,  that 
the  "  Law  was  a  shadow  of  good  things  to  come,  but 
the  body  is  Christ  "  and  not  baptism. 

So  that,  the  substitution  of  baptism  for  circumcision 
is  not  only  totally  unfounded  in  the  Bible,  but  it  i9 
destructive  of  the  divinely  appointed  relation  between 
the  types  of  the  former  dispensation,  and  the  spiritu- 
al blessings  of  the  present. 


29 

The  third  lecture,  is  commenced  with  a  repetition 
of  what  the  author  had  often  in  substance  before  stat- 
ed concerning  the  "sacred  community,"  infan'  mem- 
bership, and  instituted  sign  of  that  membership,  &c. 
It  were  easy  to  show  that  the  "  sacred  community" 
were  a  stiff-necked  people — a  generation  of  vipers, 
and  the  murderers  of  our  Lord  ;  and  that  the  princi- 
pal blessing  peculiar  to  them  was  the  possession  of 
the  "  Oracles  of  God,"  which  to  infants  is  not 
of  much  interest.  And  as  to  the  lt  privilege  so  dear 
to  the  heart,"  (he painful  privilege  that  the  Israelites 
seemed  glad  to  neglect,  we  would  not  "  rob"  the  Dr. 
nor  any  other  child  of  Abraham  of  it,  not  upon  any 
account ;  nor  yet,  of  the  more  pleasant  privilege  of 
human  device,  substituted;  if  we  did  not  think  that 
Christ  is  robbed  of  his  glory  as  Lawgiver  in  Zion 
thereby.  In  regard  to  "  cutting  off  the  children  from 
the  Christian  church,"  we  remark,  it  is  impossible, 
for  the  simple  reason  that  they  were  never  numbered 
among  the  primitive  churches.  The  Dr.  in  this  re- 
spect is  cruel  to  the  dear  children,  for  after  he  initi- 
ates them,  he  prohibits  them  from  enjoying  the  privi- 
leges of  the  church.  Thousands,  have  received  the 
sign,  have  been  christened,  are  within  the  pales,  and 
have  not  been  taken  once  to  the  Lord's  table  to  com- 
memorate the  death  of  the  Saviour  !  Did  Christ  pro- 
hibit any  of  his  disciples  ?  Why,  the  Jewish  chil- 
dren partook  of  the  paschal  supper,  and  are  not  the 
privileges  of  the  gospel  "  greatly  enlarged  ?" 

There  is  abundant  proof  that  the  church  of  Jesus 
Christ  is  not  the  congregation  of  Israel  led  by  Moses. 
The  same  principles  of  justice  and  mercy  were  ex- 
hibited under  both,  but  the  form  was  totally  differ- 
ent.    Circumcision  was  a  part  of  ihe  form.     It  was 


30 

appointed,  and  abolished,  with  the  whole  typical 
system  of  which  it  was  a  part.  Nothing  was  ap- 
pointed in  its  stead.  It  ceased  to  be  binding  upon 
the  believing  Jews.  It  never  was  obligatory  upon 
Gentiles.  But  when  God  set  up  a  kingdom  for  his 
.Son,  He  appointed  two  ordinances,  Baptism  and  the 
Communion,  for  the  observance  of  all  believers  in 
every  age,  as  evidences  of  their  love,  and  fruits  of 
their  faith  in  the  Messiah.  That  this  has  no  con- 
connexion  with  the  Jewish  nation  whatever,  I  pro- 
ceed to  show.  John  the  baptist  was  sent  to  proclaim 
the  approach  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  and  the  Pha- 
risees requested  admission  on  the  ground  that  they 
were  children  of  Abraham,  but  they  were  refused. 
The  Gospel  kingdom,  was  not  the  Jewish,  or  their 
plea  would  have  availed  them.  Faith  and  repentance 
were  required  as  pre-requisites  to  admission;  Every 
tree  was  required  to  bear  good  fruit  for  itself.  Proxy 
faith,  nor  pious  ancestry  would  not  answer  this  dis- 
criminating spiritual  dispensation.  Mark  3  :  7-12. 
4:  17.  ]0:  7.  II  .  13.  "The  beginning  of  the 
gospel  of  Jesus  Christ  the  Son  of  God."  John  did 
baptise  in  the  wilderness,  and  preach  the  baptism  of 
repentance.  &c.  Mark  1 :  1-5.  "The  Law  and  the 
Prophets  were  until  John  ;"  since  that  lime  the  king- 
dom of  God  is  preached.  Luke  16.  16.  From  those 
passages  it  is  clearly  proved  that  the  former  dispen- 
sation or  church  state  ceased,  and  that  it  had  no  con- 
nection with  the  gospel  churches  whatever.  The 
sceptre  departed  from  Judah,  because  Shilo  had  come, 
to  whom,  and  not  to  the  standard  of  Moses,  the  peo- 
ple were  to  gather.  The  church  of  Christ,  there- 
fore, is  not  the  same  with  the  Jewish  church,  altho' 
the  principles  of  piety  are  the  same  under  all  dispen- 


31 

sations.  As  "the  right  of  infant  baptism"  never  ex- 
isted, we  cannot  otherwise  than  deny  it,  if  we  wish 
to  obey  the  Bible.  It  did  not  exist  in  the  former 
dispensation.  It  is  not  mentioned  once  in  the  Old 
Testament,  nor  in  the  New.  The  Dr.  says,  "to  de- 
mand positive  and  express  authority  for  infant  bap- 
tism from  the  New  Testament,  is  unreasonable." 
But  if  it  is  not  in  the  Old,  it  seems  very  reasonable, 
we  should  ask  for  it  in  the  New,  especially,  as  bap- 
tism is  a  New  Testament  ordinance.  I  suppose,  our 
brethren  would  rather  we  would  not  question  its  au- 
thority at  all.  It  is  like  the  celebration  of  mass.  It 
can  only  be  proven  from  the  silence  of  the  Bible. 

On  p.  48,  the  Dr.  intimates  that  satisfactory  proof 
can  be  adduced  from  the  New  Testament  for  infant 
baptism.  He  does  not  say  "  positive  and  express 
authority."  Intelligent  Protestants,  however,  pro- 
fess to  desire  express  authority,  for  whatever  they  do 
in  the  name  of  Christ,  especially,  in  relation  to  posi- 
tive institutes.  If  the  duly  is  not  expressed  in  law, 
there  is  no  such  duty  of  course  ;  nor  can  any  man 
be  disobedient  in  neglecting  it :  for  if  "there  is  no 
law,  there  is  no  transgression."  The  Dr.  says 
there  is  no  difficulty  in  producing  satisfactory  proof, 
and  Protestants  profess  that  it  must  be  expression, 
and  not  silence.  Express  proof,  is  not  found  in  the 
New  Testament,  so  the  Dr.  proceeds  to  draw  infer- 
ences again.  I  will  follow  him,  and  show  that  they 
are  as  unfounded,  and  far-fetched,  as  when  he  labors 
to  get  baptism  out  of  the  law  of  circumcision. 

His  first  argument  is  founded  on  Gal.  3:  29.  "If  ye 
be  Christ's  then  are  ye  Abraham's  seed  and  heirs  ac- 
cording to  the  promise."  "So  then  they  which  be  of 
faith  are  blessed  with  faithful  Abraham."  v.  9.  "For 


32 

as  many  as  are  of  the  works  of  the  law,  are  under 
the  curse,"  v.  10.  Now  it  is  proven  from  the  same 
chapter  that  believers  alone  are  children  of  the  ex- 
emplar of  faith.  And  it' follows,  that  they  who  cling 
to  circumcision,  a  work  of  the  law,  are  under  the 
curse.  And  we  have  seen,  that  the  rite  was  a  bloody 
and  painful  one,  not  a  "  precious  privilege,"  not  a 
seal  of  righteousness  to  any  but  Abraham,  not  a  sign 
of  spiritual  character. 

Through  the  whole  of  this  argument  the  author  as- 
sumes that  circumcision  was  the  sign  of  an  interest 
in  the  covenant  of  grace,  and  that  baptism  supplies 
its  place.  But,  not  a  single  proof  does  he  present  to 
sustain  his  positions.  The  words  of  our  Saviour, 
are  next  quoted,  "Suffer  little  children  to  come  unto 
me,"  &c.  We  could  quote  scores  of  Paedobaptist 
authors  against  the  Dr,  upon  this  subject.  See  Ann 
nf  Poole's  Continuators  and  Dodridge  on  this  text. 
I  believe,  no  one  has  ever  before  pretended,  that 
this  passage  proves  infant  baptism.  It  says  not  a 
word  upon  the  subject ;  no  more,  than  on  the  sub- 
ject of  making  the  sign  of  the  cross  upon  them.  The 
Saviour  blessed  them,  but  he  did  not  baptise  them, 
for  he  baptised  no  one.  John  4 :  2.  The  interpre- 
tation of  the  phrase  "kingdom  of  heaven"  is  not  sus- 
tained. The  Patriarchs  were  not  in  the  visible  king- 
dom of  heaven  when  those  words  were  spoken,  con- 
sequently, none  from  the  east  or  west,  north  or  south, 
could  set  down  with  them.  Our  Saviour  represents 
persons  of  certain  characters,  as  endeavoring  to  en- 
ter the  gate-way  of  heaven,  who  when  they  get 
within  the  entrance,  are  found  to  be  destitute  of  the 
wedding  garment,  and  are  therefore  cast  out.  Such 
were  the  Pharisees,  who  were  persuaded  by  their 


33 

Rabbis,  that  they  were  sufficiently  righteous  to  enter 
the  visible  and  invisible  kingdom,  in  as  much  as  they 
were  the  seed,  and  had  the  sign.  But  while  such 
were  rejected,  the  blessed  Redeemer,  says,  that  chil- 
dren are  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven ;  and  that  their 
angels  do  always  behold  the  face  of  my  Father  in 
heaven.  And  Paul  tells  us  tbat  angels  are  minister- 
ing spirits  lo  them  who  shall  be  heirs  of  salvation. 
From  all  which,  we  learn  that  the  principal  part  of 
the  inhabitants  of  the  kingdom  of  glory,  will  be  com- 
posed of  those  who  die  in  infancy.  This  unspeaka- 
ble blessing,  is  not  obtained  by  birth,  baptism,  cir- 
cumcision, nor  any  other  work  of  man,  but  by  the 
election  of  grace,  through  the  blood  of  Christ.  The 
church  of  Rome  hath  ordained,  that  as  many  children 
may  die  without  baptism  at  the  hand  of  the  Priest, 
and  therefore,  be  lost,  unless  they  be  baptised  by 
some  on?,  parents  or  any  one  may  perform  the  sav- 
ing ceremony.  The  labor  the  Dr.  has  performed, 
and  the  size  of  his  book,  would  lead  one  to  suppose 
he  attached  equal  importance  to  this  custom.  The 
next  argument  is,  from  the  preaching  of  Peter  on  the 
day  of  Pentecost.  And  the  very  first  effort  seems  to 
be,  to  divert  the  attention  of  the  reader  from  the  par- 
ticular promise  to  which  the  apostle  refers.  Is  it  pos- 
sible that  the  Dr.  is  unacquainted  with  the  promise 
here  spoken  of?  If  he  had  not  referred  to  it  before, 
I  should  be  disposed  to  such  a  conclusion.  I  confess 
my  astonishment  that  the  Dr.  should  say  that  it  was 
the  promise  made  to  Abraham.  Is  there  no  other 
promise  in  the  Bible?  I  hope  the  reader  of  the  lec- 
tures desires  to  know  the  truth.  If  so,  he  will  care- 
fully read  the  passage,  Acts  2  :  16 — 39,  in  which 
he  will  easily  perceive  that  the  promise  is  not  that 
3 


34 

made  to  Abraham,  but  that  which  is  recorded  in  Joel 
2 :  28 — 32.  And  Peter,  says,  in  contradiction  of 
the  Dr.  "  This  is  that  which  was  spoken  by  ihe  pro- 
phet Joel."  v.  16.  The  promise  of  the  pouring  forth 
of  the  Holy  Spirit,  upon  some  of  the  posterity  of 
the  Jews,  can  have  no  application  to  infants  what- 
ever. The  gifts  were  miraculous.  "Your  sons  and 
daughters  shall  prophecy,  your  young  men  shall  see 
visions.  And  also  upon  the  servants  and  upon  the 
handmaids  in  those  days  will  I  pour  out  my  Spirit." 
Accordingly,  the  disciples  on  that  occasion  spake  with 
tongues,  seventeen  languages,  and  prophesied.  Were 
the  infants  thus  engaged  ?     Did  they  preach  ? 

After  all  the  Dr.  has  not  found  one  word  in  the 
chapter,  on  the  subject  of  infant  baptism.  Children 
in  the  passage  means  posterity,  descendants.  The 
Greek  word,  is  not  the  same  which  expresses  a  state 
of  infancy.  And  the  promise,  is  limited  to  as  many 
as  the  "  Lord  shall  call,"  whether  they  shall  be  Jews 
or  Gentiles.  Hence,  "  they  that  gladly  received  the 
word,  were  baptised."  v.  41.  Afterwards,  they  par- 
took of  the  Lord's  Supper.  But  the  infants,  were 
not  considered  subjects  of  either  ordinance  at  that 
time. 

The  third  argument,  proposes  to  get  something 
from  the  practice  of  the  apostles  to  favor  this  scheme 
of  making  Christians  of  the  poor  babes,  nolens  vo- 
lens.  But,  we  shall  now  see,  that  there  is  not  a 
trace  of  it  in  the  history  of  the  first  churches. 

Of  the  thousands  who  were  baptised  on  the  day  of 
Pentecost,  and  in  Samaria,  there  is  no  mention  made 
of  believer's  households.  It  is  not  said  that  they  and 
their  children  were  baptised.  In  Samaria,  "  both 
men  and  women"  were  baptised,  but  no  children. 


35 

Now,  on  the  supposition  that  children  were  baptised, 
is  it  not  unaccountable  that  the  historian  never  once 
mentions  it  ?  They  never  regarded  them  as  proper 
ifubjects  of  baptism.  In  the  case  of  the  households, 
there  is  abundant  proof  that  there  were  no  infants  in 
them.  This,  we  cheerfully  furnish,  although  it  is 
the  duty  of  our  opponents  to  prove  the  contrary.  To 
do  this,  in  the  case  ot  Lvdia,  they  must  first  prove 
that  she  ever  had  a  husband.  If  any  think  she  had, 
where  was  he,  that  he  was  not  attending  to  his  mer- 
chandising"? And  if  this  could  be  proved,  it  remains 
to  be  shown,  that  she  had  children  in  infancy.  There 
are  thousands  of  households  without  any  children, 
and  thousands  more  without  young  children.  This, 
therefore,  does  not  appear  from  the  record.  She  was 
about  three  hundred  miles  from  home,  and  evidently 
had  no  children  in  infancy  with  her  at  Philippi.  But, 
if  we  were  to  admit  all  of  the  preceding,  it  cannot  be 
proved  that  infants  were  baptised,  from  the  word 
household  or  family.  Thus  in  1  Sam.  1:  21,  it  is  said 
that  "Elkanah  and  all  his  house,  went  up  to  offer 
up  the  yearly  sacrifice,  and  his  vow."  But,  it  is  add- 
ed v.  23,  Hannah  went  not  up;  and  in  verse  23,  that 
11  So  she  abode,  and  gave  her  son  suck  until  she  wean- 
ed him."  Samuel  and  his  mother  were  not  included 
in  the  term.  Our  Saviour  says,  Math  10:  36,  that, 
"  A  man's  foes  shall  be  those  of  his  own  household.'" 
Surely,  infants  are  not  a  man's  foes.  We  are  com- 
manded to  do  good  to  the  household  of  faith,  Gal.  6: 
10.  None  will  contend  that  infants  are  of  that  house- 
hold. 

That  there  were  no  infants  in  Lydia's  household, 
is  perfectly  evident  from  the  fact  recorded  in  Acts  16: 
40.     "And  they  went  out  of  the  prison  (Paul   antf 


36 

Silas)  and  entered  into  the  house  of  Lydia:  and  when 
they  had  seen  the  brethren  they  comforted  them,  and 
departed."  Now,  who  ever  heard  of  infants  being 
called  brethren  1  Who  supposes  that  the  promises 
of  the  gospel,  the  only  consolation  the  apostles  had 
to  impart,  would  comfort  infants  ?  Credulous  must 
he  be,  that  can  believe  there  were  infants  in  the  fami- 
ly of  Lydia  ! 

Of  the  house  of  Stephanas  it  is  positively  said,  1 
Cor.  16  :  15,  that  "  the  house  of  Stephanas  *  *  *  the 
first  fruits  of  Achaia,  *  *  *  addicted  themselves  to  the 
ministry  of  the  saints."  What  precocious  powers 
these  infants  must  have  possessed,  if  the  guess  of 
the  Dr.  were  true  !  Moreover,  the  apostle  beseeches 
the  churches  of  Corinth,  to  "submit  unto  such,"  in 
the  next  verse.  Will  our  Paedobaptist  friends  yield 
the  reins  of  the  church  to  the  hands  of  such  ?  This 
would  be  a  great  change  in  their  condition.  Hereto- 
fore they  have  only  had  the  name  of  being  in  the 
church,  merely  within  its  pales,  but  upon  the  suppo- 
sition of  the  Dr.  and  in  obedience  to  Paul,  a  change 
of  places  must  occur:  "Submit  yourselves  unto  such," 
is  the  command.  In  the  face  of  these  facts,  what 
becomes  of  the  "legitimate  conclusion!" 

The  jailor  of  Philippi  and  his  household  are  next  to 
be  examined.  The  Dr.  says  there  is  no  intimation, 
"  that  any  one  in  these  different  households  believed, 
except  the  head  of  the  family,"  and  then  waits  for  a 
reply.  I  cheerfully  present  it.  Turn,  now,  to  the 
"law  and  the  testimony."  I  speak  to  the  reader,  as 
well  as  the  preacher.  Acts  16:  29 — 34.  When  the 
jailer  cried  out.  "Sirs,  what  must  I  do  to  be  saved?" 
they  said,  "  Believe  on  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  and 
thou  shall  be  saved,  and  thy  house,"  upon  the  same 


37 

terms,  as  I  suppose,  "  And  they  spake  unto  him 
the  word  of  the  Lord,  and  to  all  that  were  in  his 
house."  Were  infants  subjects  of  gospel  instruction, 
or  discipleship  ?"  "  And  he  took  them  *  *  *  wash- 
ed their  stripes;  and  was  baptised,  he  and  all  his, 
straitway," — "all  his,"  who  had  been  instructed, 
and  believed  in  Christ,  as  the  jailer  himself  did. 
"And  when  he  had  brought  them  into  his  house,  he 
set  meat  before  them,  and  rejoiced,  believing  in  God, 
with  all  his  house."  Here  the  Holy  Spirit  empha- 
tically declares  that  all  his  house  believed;  not  by 
proxy,  but  in  their  own  souls.  Proxy  faith,  is  not 
in  the  Bible.  Prayers  for  the  dead,  are  as  Scriptural, 
as  proxy  faith.  See  Mathew  Henry,  Dr.  Dodridge, 
and  Calvin  on  this  passage,  how  they  demolish  the 
paedobaptist  argument. 

I  have  replied,  and  proved,  that  all  in  the  house  be- 
lieved; but  the  Dr.  will  never  fulfil  his  promise.  I 
have  the  infallible  testimony  of  the  everlasting  and 
unerring  Spirit,  and  the  law  of  the  Lord,  that  believ- 
ers, only,  are  the  proper  subjects  of  baptism.  And 
he,  therefore,  who  utters  the  sacred  name  of  the  au- 
gust Trinity,  over  a  misapplication  of  this  ordinance, 
does  it  without  either  "  law"  or  "  authority,"  and 
would  do  well  to  ponder  the  Divine  warning, 
"  Thou  shalt  not  take  the  name  of  the  Lord  thy  God 
in  vain;  for  the  Lord  will  not  hold  him  guiltless,  that 
taketh  his  name  in  vain." 

The  Dr's.  remark  on  the  house  of  Boaz  amounts 
to  nothing,  for,  according  to  the  text  adduced,  it  was 
a  house,  or  household,  as  soon  as  the  marriage  was 
consummated;  nor  does  the  wish,  that  it  should  be 
enlarged,  alter  the  case;  it  was  still  nothing  more  than 
a  house,  or  household.     The  quotation  from  Paul's 


38 

letter  to  Timothy,  is  equally  inconclusive;  for  chil- 
dren partly  grown,  need  more  ruling  than  infants, 
unless  they  are  believers,  which  is  sometimes  the 
case,  even,  at  the  age  of  eight  or  ten  years. 

The  reference  made  to  proselyte  baptisms  is  of  little 
consequence  in  this  controversy.  Dr.  Owen  and 
many  other  paedobaptists  argue  that  no  such  custom 
existed  among  the  Jews.  All  concede  that  there 
were  "divers  washings"  among  them;  and  it  is  equal- 
ly plain,  that  bathing  has  been  in  practice  among 
the  Gentiles  from  time  immemorial,  in  which,  of 
course,  children  were  included,  because  they  stood  in 
need  of  washing.  But  who  supposes  that  when  our 
Lord  appointed  a  positive  ordinance  for  the  obser- 
ance  of  his  followers  in  every  age,  that  he  would  adopt 
a  rite,  because  it  was  a  custom  prevalent  among  men? 
Did  his  own  mental  resources  fail  him?  Absurd  sup- 
position !  Baptism,  is  an  ordinance  of  Jesus  Christ ; 
and  he  who  commenced  the  administration  of  this 
sacred  rite,  was  a  "man  sent  from  God,"  who  did 
not  think  of  looking  after  "washings"  among  men, 
but  who  regarded  only  the  authority  of  God.  "  He 
who  sent  me  to  baptise,"  &c.  John  1  :  33. 

As  the  Dr.  could  find  no  proof  in  the  practice  of 
the  Apostles  for  infant  baptism,  the  effort  to  gain 
something  from  Jewish  purifications,  appears  to  be  a 
kind  of  dernier  resort.  For,  he  might  as  well  argue, 
that  because  all  parents  in  the  land,  wash  themselves 
and  their  children,  therefore,  the  children  of  believers 
ought  to  be  baptised  ! 

Under  his  fourth  head,  he  endeavors  to  find  infant 
membership  in  the  case  of  the  believing  and  unbeliev- 
ing parents.  1  Cor.  7  :  14.  "Else  were  your  chil- 
dren unclean,  but  now  are  they  holy."     Some  of  the 


39 

members  of  the  church  at  Corinth  had  some  doubt  of 
the  propriety  of  living  with  an  unconverted  partner. 
The  apostle  instructs  them  to  abide  with  their  unbe- 
lieving husbands  or  wives,  for,  the  one  he  says  is 
sanctified  by  the  other,  i.  e.  the  unbelieving  by  the 
believing.  And  the  propriety  of  this,  he  shows  by 
the  consequence  that  would  follow  the  contrary  sup- 
position, "Else  were  your  children  unclean,  but  now 
are  they  holy."  Believing  in  Christ,  does  not  nullify 
the  sacred  relation  of  marriage,  but  renders  it  more 
endearing,  and  secures  to  the  children  of  such  parent 
or  parents  more  tender  care,  as  their  legitimate  off- 
spring, and  thus  sanctifies  the  relation  to  all  concern- 
ed, And  he  further  declares,  that  it  is  probable  under 
the  divine  blessing,  that  the  believing  partner,  by 
abiding  with  the  unbelieving  partner,  might  win  such 
an  one  to  Christ. 

The  term,  "  holy"  in  the  passage  is  employed  in 
the  sense  of  "  legitimate.1'  The  apostle  says,  that 
"  Marriage  is  honorable  to  all,  the  bed  undefiled" 
&c.  The  parents  in  the  church  at  Corinth  were  mar- 
ried, and  their  children  were  legitimate,  pureorholy, 
because  their  parents  were  married,  and  the  bed  un« 
defiled,  legitimate,  pure,  or  holy.  The  law  of  faith, 
does  not  therefore  make  void  either  the  connubial  or 
parental  relation.  And  this  was  the  doubt  of  these 
Corinthians.  If  the  marriage  relation,  were  dissolv- 
ed by  the  possession  of  faith  on  the  one  part,  then,  the 
apostle  would  seem  to  argue,  that  the  filial  and  pater- 
nal relation  would  also  be  dissolved  in  that  case. 
Both  the  unbelieving  partner  and  children  stood  in 
the  same  ralation  to  the  believing  partner,  and  there- 
fore the  same  to  the  church.  So  that,  if  the  believ- 
ing partner  were  to  cast.off  the  unbelieving  partner, 


40 

she  must  also  cast  off  her  children,  for  their  relation 
to  her,  grows  out  of  her  relation  to  her  husband.  And 
if  our  brethren  will  baptise  the  children,  therefore, 
because  they  are  sacredly  related  to  their  believing 
mother,  they  must  also  baptise  the  unbelieving  hus- 
band, for  he  is  equally  sanctified  by  his  believing 
wife.  We  are  shut  up  to  this  conclusion.  And  now 
we  ask  the  Dr.  which  is  the  most  "  ridiculous,"  the 
sense  of  "  legitimate,"  or  the  legitimate  conclusion 
from  the  Dr's.  premise  ? 

The  baptists  contend  that  "holy"  matrimony  se- 
cures "  legitimacy"  or  cleanness  to  the  descendants, 
independent  of  faith  in  the  parent  or  parents.  And 
as  to  the  dedication  of  which  the  Dr.  speaks,  it  is 
without  the  shadow  of  foundation.  He  is  upon  this, 
as  upon  circumcision,  self-contradictory.  The  argu- 
ment amounts  to  this,  the  children  ought  to  be  dedi- 
cated, because  they  are  born  holy  of  believing  pa- 
rents. They  ought  to  be  made  holy  by  dedication, 
because  their  parents  are  believers.  Tins  is  precise- 
ly of  a  piece  with  the  argument,  that  because,  they 
are  children  of  the  seed  of  Abraham,  they  have  a 
right  to  baptism,  being  in  the  covenant,  by  birth;  and 
ought  to  be  baptised  because  it  is  the  initiating  ordi- 
nance into  the  covenant. 

There  is  no  wish  manifest  in  the  Dr's.  argument 
that  the  servants,  should  partake  of  the  seal,  as  they 
did  in  Abraham's  day.  No  desire,  that  they  should 
be  taken  into  covenant  relation  with  God,  by  baptis- 
mal dedication  on  the  strength  of  the  faith  of  the  head 
of  the  household.  This  is  a  gross  departure  from 
the  stipulations  of  the  covenant.  Surely,  if  the  un- 
believing husband  can  be  sanctified,  and  the  children 
of  such  be  baptised,  there  might  be  room  in  some 


41 

corner  of  the  covenant  for  the  poor  orphan  servants, 
especially,  as  the  privileges  of  the  covenant  are  "much 
enlarged"  in  this  dispensation !  Cannot  these  poor 
souls  be  "  included  in  the  bond  of  God's  covenant 
with  his  church  ?"  "  The  child  inherits  the  privi- 
leges of  the  covenant  from  the  believing  parents," 
and  yet,  there  is  no  such  mercy  in  this  scheme  for 
the  servant  of  the  seed,  though  both  his  master  and 
mistress  may  be  believers  !  What,  is  the  gospel  dis- 
pensation less  "benign"  than  the  covenant  of  circum- 
cision ?  Though  I  ask  these  questions  to  show  how 
inconsistent  these  brethren  are  with  their  professed 
attachment  to  the  covenant  of  circumcision,  I  do  not 
wonder  that  they  do  not  "care  for  the  soul"  of  their 
servants  in  this  respect,  for,  they  who  can  invade  the 
prerogative  of  lmmanuel  to  give  laws  to  his  people 
by  superceding  them,  and  "making  them  void  by 
men's  traditions,"  and  thus  rob  Him  of  his  glory  as 
King  in  Zion,  can  without  scruple  refuse  to  give  the 
infant  servant,  the  "benefits  of  the  covenant."  This 
"  right."  is  now  denied  them,  though  it  would  seem 
that  our  brethren  tl  ink  that  the  salvation  of  the  soul 
depends  upon  having  the  sprinkling  seal,  upon  their 
foreheads.  If  this  is  not  the  sentiment,  why  do  they 
labor  so  hard  and  so  long  to  eke  out  of  some  dark 
passage  a  little  inferential  proof  for  their  favorite  de- 
vice ?  The  Bible,  however,  remains  as  silent  as  the 
grave  on  the  subject  of  infant  baptism.  And  Christ 
is  still  demanding  .our  confidence  as  the  only  founda- 
tion of  our  hope,  for  the  salvation  of  our  own  souls, 
and  that  of  the  souls  of  our  children.  May  we  not 
"crucify  Him  afresh  and  put  him  to  an  open  shame," 
by  disbelieving  the  fulness  of  his  grace,  the  complete- 
ness of  his  righteousness,  the  efficacy  of  his  blood, 


42 

the  sealing  of  his  Spirit;  and  leaning  upon  a  christen- 
ing ceremony  of  man's  invention  !  Infidel  France, 
superstitious  Germany,  Italy  with  her  sales  of  new- 
made  relics  of  the  cross,  and  traffic  in  indulgences, 
and  seat  of  the  Beast,  bloody  Spain,  Portugal  and 
Mexico,  and  degraded  South  America  are  specimens 
of  the  baleful  tendency  of  this  o-nti-christian  practice, 
All  of  these  are  christened. 

Although  Christ  declared  to  his  disciples,  that  his 
"kingdom  is  not  of  this  world,"  yet,  men  have  taken 
it  upon  themselves  in  opposition  to  the  word  of  God, 
to  open  this  sluice,  for  the  world  to  flow  into  it,  until 
pure  Christianity  both  in  its  spirit  and  form  is  almost 
entirely  "obscured.  For  centuries,  it  was  to  be  found 
not  in  the  christened  church,  but  in  the  remote  vallies 
of  Piedmont,  and  in  the  mountains  of  Wales,  repre- 
sented as  heretical  by  the  anti-christian  power  that 
was  erected  and  rested  on  this  main  pillar  of  Popery. 
Trusting,  to  this  sprinkling  operation,  millions  of 
souls  in  mystical  Babylon,  have  gone  securely  to  ru- 
in. With  the  introduction  of  this  error,  nearly  all  of 
the  errors  of  the  anti-christian  church  were  introduc- 
ed. Infant  baptism  and  infant  communion  were  ori- 
ginated at  the  same  date,  and  rest  on  the  same  ground. 
The  Jewish  children  partook  of  the  paschal  lamb  as 
well  as  the  "  precious  privilege"  of  circumcision. 
They  both  originated  in  Africa,  the  darkest  part  in 
Christendom;  and  with  them  the  consecration  of  wa- 
ter,— the  use  of  sponsors — the  sign  of  the  cross — the 
form  of  renouncing — unction — anointing  with  oil — 
the  giving  a  mixture  of  milk  and  honey  to  persons 
just  baptised — prayers  and  oblations  for  the  dead,  and 
a  score  of  other  fooleries  :  these,  were  mentioned  by 
Tertullian  for  the  first  time,    and  afterwards    main- 


43 

tained  and  industriously  propagated  by  Augustine. 
As  the  Dr.  has  totally  failed  to  find  precept,  exam- 
ple, or  even  a  shadow  for  infant  baptism  in  the  word 
of  God,  he  proceeds  page  72,  to  search  the  Pandora 
of  human  tradition,  for  authority  in  favor  of  this  cus- 
tom of  the  Romish  church. 

The  first  reference  he  makes  is  to  Justin  Martyr, 
who  says  "  we  have  received  the  spiritual  circumci- 
sion, by  baptism,  by  the  mercy  of  God,  because  we 
were  sinners."  Does  the  Dr.  endorse  this  sentiment 
taken  literally  ?  I  have  already  observed  that  infant 
baptism  was  first  practised  because  of  its  supposed  sa- 
ving efficacy.  This  very  doctrine  is  the  essence  of 
Antichrist.  And  the  same  expediency  which  devised 
it,  also  dictated  the  sale  of  indulgences,  purgatory, 
pilgrimages,  prayers  for  the  dead,  &c.  &c.  1  take  a 
different  view,  however,  of  the  meaning  of  Justin, 
from  what  he  afterwards  says  in  his  address  to  the 
Emperor  Antonius  Pius.  From  which  we  learn  he 
seems  to  have  regarded  it  not  as  a  regenerating  pro- 
cess,  but  the  emblem  of  grace  previously  received. 
He  says,  "  I  will  now  lay  before  you  the  manner  in 
which,  on  our  own  conversion,  we  dedicate  ourselves 
to  God  through  Christ,  lest  if  I  omitted  this,  my  ad- 
dress might  be  suspected  of  sincerity.  J2s  many 
therefore,  as  are  persuaded  and  believe,  that  the 
things  taught  and  said  by  us,  are  true,  and  take  upon 
them  to  live  accordingly,  are  taught  to  pray  and  ask 
God,  with  fastings,  the  forgiveness  of  their  former 
sins:  we  uniting  with  them  in  these  exercises.  Then, 
and  not  till  then,  they  are  brought  to  a  place  of 
water,  and  there  regenerated  after  the  same  manner 
of  ourselves."  This  clearly  proves  that  the  "child- 
hood" mentioned  by  Justin  was    not  infancy.     He 


44 

moreover  professed  sincerity  in  this  address  before 
the  Emperor.  But  upon  the  supposition  that  they 
practised  infant  baptism,  he  was  guilty  of  the  most 
revolting  duplicity.  In  addition  to  this,  as  the  apos- 
tles baptised  none  but  those  who  believed,  gladly  re- 
ceived the  word,  received  the  Holy  Ghost,  &c.  These 
persons  must  have  been  old  enough  to  understand  and 
believe  the  gospel. 

In  regard  to  the  testimony  of  Tertullian,  I  remark, 
that  without  perversion  it  cannot  support  the  cause 
for  which  it  is  adduced.  Venema,  says,  in  his  his- 
tory of  the  church,  vol.  3  :  p.  108,  that  "  he  has  no 
where  mentioned  infant  baptism  among  the  customs 
of  the  church.  For,  he  dissuades  from  baptising  in- 
fants, and  proves  a  delay  of  it  to  a  more  mature  age, 
is  to  be  preferred." 

The  passage  alluded  to  is  as  follows  :  *«  The  de- 
lay of  baptism  may  be  more  advantageous  either  on 
account  of  the  condition,  disposition  or  age  of  any 
person,  especially  in  reference  to  little  children.  For 
what  necessity  is  there  that  the  sponsors  should  be 
brought  into  danger  ?  because  either  they  themselves 
may  fail  of  their  promises  by  death,  or  be  deceived 
by  the  growth  of  evil  dispositions  (in  the  children.) 
The  Lord  indeed  says,  ■  Do  not  forbid  them  to  come 
unto  me.'  Let  them  therefore  come  when  they  are 
grownup;  when  they  can  understand  ;  when  they 
are  taught  to  what  they  are  to  come.  Let  them  be- 
come christians  when  they  can  know  Christ.  Why 
should  this  innocent  age  hasten  to  (the  sign  of)  the 
remission  of  sins  ?  Men  act  more  cautiously  iu 
earthly  things  ;  so  that  divine  things  are  here  intrust- 
ed with  whom  earthly  things  are  not.  Let  them  know 
how  to  seek  salvation,  that  you  may  appear  to  give 
lo  one  that  asketh." 


45 

Now,  does  not  the  reader  clearly  perceive  that  in- 
fant baptism  is  referred  to  by  Tertullian  on  purpose, 
to  disapprove,  and  condemn  it  ?  He  represents  it  as 
an  innovation,  which  he  considered  his  duty,  strong- 
ly and  decidedly  to  oppose.  There  is  nothing  pro- 
ven, therefore,  by  the  passage,  except  that  persons 
ought  to  know  Christ  before  they  are  baptised  ;  and 
that  about  that  time  the  error  of  infant  baptism,  the 
sign  of  the  cross,  &c,  began  to  be  introduced.  The 
reader  must  always  bear  in  mind,  that  there  is  a  wide 
difference  between  ancient  Christianity  and  primitive 
Christianity.  The  former  which  took  its  rise  in  the 
second  century,  is  what  gave  the  power,  the  pope, 
and  all  the  mummeries  to  the  church  of  Rome.  The 
latter  is  found  alone  in  the  Bible. 

The  controversy  now  going  on  between  the  Ox- 
ford tract,  popish  parly,  of  the  Episcopal  church,  and 
the  more  evangelical  party,  is  upon  this  very  subject, 
whether  the  traditions  of  the  Fathers,  are  of  equal 
authority  with  the  word  of  God,  or  not  ?  If  the  rea- 
der will  consult  Isaac  Taylor's  new  work  and  Bishop 
M'Vaine's,  he  will  see  many  developements  of  the 
corruptions  of  the  second  and  third  centuries  ;  and 
the  one  which  we  now  oppose  among  the  rest. 

The  next  witness  the  Dr.  introduces  is  Origen, 
who  was  born  in  the  latter  part  of  the  second  centu- 
ry. He  was  a  learned  man  says  the  Dr.  I  say  he 
was  one  of  the  most  whimsical  interpreters  of  scrip- 
ture that  ever  lived.  He  was  an  "everlasting  alle- 
gorizer"  according  to  a  Poedobaptist  author,  and 
condemned  on  different  occasions,  for  his  numerous 
errors.  Let  history  decide  between  us.  Dr.  Wall 
has  shown  clearly  that  by  babes  in  Christ  was  meant 
by  Origen,  such  as  "  desire  the  sincere  milk  of  the 


4G 

word,  spoken  of  by  Peter.  The  quotation  made  by 
the  Dr.  is  a  mere  interpolation  made  by  Ruffinus, 
who  pretended  to  translate  the  Greek  of  Origen  into 
the  Latin  language.  This  is  admitted  by  Dr.  Dod- 
ridge,  and  proved  by  Dr.  Gill,  from  the  genuine 
Greek  fragments  of  his  works.  Besides,  the  »■«  Apos- 
tle's order"  could  as  easily  be  seen  by  us  as  by  Ori- 
gen, if  it  were  in  the  New  Testament. 

The  next  witness  the  Dr.  brings  forward  is  Cypri- 
an, who  gives  the  decree  of  a  council  held  in  Car- 
thage about  in  the  middle  of  the  third  century.  The 
Dr.  takes  peculiar  care  to  keep  back  the  ground  upon 
which  this  decision  was  formed.  It  would  have 
shown  the  character  of  this  famous  council  very 
much  to  his  disadvantage.  This  is  the  very  council 
to  which  the  Romanist  refers  for  authority  for  exor- 
cism, prayers  for  the  dead,  &c.  Will  the  Dr.  en- 
dorse its  doctrines  and  doings?  If  he  does  in  one 
respect,  he  is  bound  to  do  it  in  all,  or  it  is  no  authori- 
ty, but,  to  the  record — Fidus  asked,  "  may  chil- 
dren be  baptised"?  (the  question  proves  that  it  was  a 
novelty.)  To  which  the  council  replied,  "  God  de- 
nies grace  to  none;  Jesus  came  not  to  destroy  men's 
lives,  but  to  save  them.  Besides,  God  wouid  be  a 
respecter  of  persons  if  he  denied  to  infants  what  he 
grants  to  adults.  Did  not  the  prophet  Elisha  lay 
upon  a  child,  and  put  his  mouth  upon  his  mouth, 
and  his  eyes  upon  his  eyes,  and  his  hands  upon  his 
hands?  Now  the  spiritual  sense  of  this  is,  that  in 
fants  are  equal  to  men :  but  if  you  refuse  to  bap- 
tise them  you  destroy  this  equality  and  are  partial." 
There,  we  see  baptismal  regeneration  and  more.  In 
the  estimation  of  those  corruptors  of  Christianity, 
baptism,  was  not  only  efficacious  in  saving  the  sub- 


47 

ject,  but  also  miraculous  in  its  power!  I  had  begun 
to  think,  as  I  advanced  in  the  perusal  of  the  work, 
that  the  Dr.  was  disposed  to  attach  saving  import- 
ance to  this  business,  but  I  was  by  no  means  prepa- 
red to  suppose  he  would  so  verbosely  laud  the  above 
decision  about  the  miraculous  power  of  this  saving 
invention.  Gullibility,  itself,  could  not  be  induced 
to  believe  in  the  purity  or  wisdom  of  such  a  council! 
Augustine,  is  the  last  witness  whom  the  Dr.  intro- 
duces. He  espoused  the  cause  of  infant  baptism, 
and  did  all  in  his  power  to  oblige  all  churches  to  es- 
pouse it  too.  He  was  sent  as  a  missionary  from  the 
church  of  Rome  to  Britain,  and  met  with  a  christian 
Association  of  ministers  and  members,  in  the  vale  of 
Carleon,  and  argued  with  them  at  great  length  upon 
the  subject,  urging  them  to  receive  this  custom  of 
his  church,  but  they  refused  on  the  ground  that  it 
was  not  found  in  the  word  of  God,  and  whereupon, 
he  called  upon  the  soldiery,  and  cut  to  pieces  several 
hundred  of  them  for  their  obstinacy  against  the  "tra- 
ditions of  men."  See  Ivemy's  history  of  the  English 
Baptists.  Also,  Davis'  history  of  the  Welsh  Bap- 
tists. It  ought  to  be  observed  here,  that  Augustine, 
although^  child  of  christian  parents, was  not  baptised 
himself  until]he  was  grown  to  manhood.  The  same 
remark  is  true  of  many  others  of  the  Fathers.  Un- 
der the  influence  of  this  monk  a  council  was  conven- 
ed at  Carthage,  A.  D.  416,  to  condemn  the  heresv 
of  Pelagius,  and  from  Carthage  fourteen  of  them  ad- 
journed to  Melo  in  Numedia.  At  this  council  Au- 
gustine presided,  and  succeeded  in  procuring  the 
passage  of  the  following  decree.  "  It  is  the  pleasure 
of  all  the  bishops  present  in  the  holy  Synod, to  order 
that  whosoever  denieth  that  infants  newly  born  of 


48 

their  mothers,  are  to  be  baptised,  shall  be  accursed" 
This  decree  was  sent  to  Rome  and  ratified  by  Pope 
Innocent,  then  by  Pope  Zozimue,  and  afterwards  by 
Pope  Boniface.  Thus,  this  murderous  monk  served 
the  cause  of  Popery  and  the  Devil,  in  first  obtaining 
the  ratification  of  his  anathema  against  the  christians, 
and  then  under  the  sanction,  and  with  the  power  of 
the  Popes,  in  proceeding  to  murder  the  followers  of 
the  Lamb,  because  they  refused  to  "  make  void  the 
commands  of  God  by  the  traditions  of  men."  At 
this  time,  there  were  four  hundred  churches  in 
Africa  that  refused  submission  to  this  imperious  pre- 
late, on  account  of  which  persecution  raged  against 
them  until  it  was  said,  "it  was  not  Austin's  fault 
that  one  was  left  to  tell  the  barbarous  tale." 

This  active  tool  of  the  Pope,  said  that,  *<  he  never 
heard  of  any  one  who  maintained  that  baptism  is 
denied  to  infants."  And  yet  this  same  fellow  once 
pretended  to  be  of  the  sect  of  Manicheans,  who  every 
one  knows,  denied  infant  baptism.  He  also  taxed  Pel- 
agius  with  the  same  thing,  and  complained  of  other 
heretics  who  denied  it.  The  quotation  from  Pela- 
gius  is  proved  by  Dr.  Gill,  to  mean  not  exactly  what 
Dr.  Pressly  would  have  it  expiess.  His  words  are, 
"  that  he  never  heard,  no,  not  any  impious  heretics, 
that  would  say  concerning  infants,  what  he  proposed 
or  mentioned."  The  phrase  lohat  he  proposed  or 
mentioned,  Dr.  G.  shows  does  not  mean  that  infants 
are  not  to  be  baptised.  Moreover,  it  is  evident, 
that  Pelagius  did  not  mean  any  such  thing,  from  the 
fact  that  he  was  charged  by  Augustine  with  denying 
infant  baptism.  But,  both  of  these  authorities  are 
too  late,  for  all  concede  that  the  worship  of  images 
commenced  before  this  time,  and  many  other  corrup- 
tions. 


41) 

The  Donatists,  and  afterwards  the  Waldenses  and 
many  other  churches,  who  were  esteemed  heretics, 
still  adhered  to  believer's  baptism,  and  opposed  the 
innovations  of  the  "general  church"  (as  the  Dr. 
calls  it.)  And  as  it  regards  the  prevalence  of  infant 
baptism  from  the  time  of  Augustine  down  to  the  Re- 
formation, we  readily  acknowledge  that  this  was  the 
case  in  the  church  of  Rome,  but  it  cannot  be  proved 
that  the  christian  churches  in  Piedmont  and  Britain 
practiced  this  device.  On  the  contrary  Dr.  Allix, 
William  Jones,  in  his  history  of  the  Waldenses,  Ro- 
bison,  and  others  show  triumphantly  that  amid  the 
most  cruel  persecutions  they  persisted  in  opposing 
this  tradition.  The  records  of  the  church  of  Rome 
prove  the  same  thing.  This  was  one  of  the  things 
charged  against  them,  thaf  they  would  not  submit  to 
the  councils  and  Bishops  of  the  church.  See  Mil- 
ner's  end  of  controversy  on  this  subject.  Mr. 
Hughes,  charged  Mr.  Brackenridge  with  practising 
infant  baptism  after  the  church  of  Rome,  and  not  ac- 
cording to  the  Protestant  Rule  of  faith.  Mr.  Brack- 
enridge did  not  attempt  to  deny  it. 

We  elope  these  references  with  one  quotation  from 
Dr.  Moshiem,  the  text  book  of  Church  history,  I 
suppose,  in  the  Seminary  over  which  the  Dr.  pre- 
sides, a  Poedobaptist  too,  second  century,  he  says, 
ik  The  persons  to  be  baptised,  after  they  had  repeat- 
ed the  creed,  confessed  and  renounced  their  sins,  and 
particularly  the  Devil  in  his  pompous  allurements, 
were  immersed  under  water,  and  received  into 
Christ's  kingdom  by  a  solemn  invocation  of  Father, 
Son,  and  Holy  Ghost."  I  would  refer  the  reader  to 
scores  of  other  testimonies,  in  Booth,  Hinton,  and 
Carson's  works  on  this  subject. 


50 

It  appears  entirely  conclusive,  that  the  doctrine  of 
baptismal  regeneration  was  broached  at  an  early  day, 
and  then  the  practice  of  infant  baptism  was  introduc- 
ed. While,  however,  it  is  inefficient  as  a  saviour, 
and  anti-christian  in  origin  and  character,  it  serves 
the  same  purpose  as  did  the  traditions  of  the  Phari- 
sees, M  to  make  void  the  commandments  of  God." 
The  institution  of  Baptism. 

In  reply  to  the  fourth  Lecture,  I  proceed  to  consi- 
der the  institution  itself.  And  here  I  would  premise, 
that  the  term  mode  is  made  use  of  by  our  opponents 
for  the  sole  purpose  of  destroying  the  ordinance, 
which,  I  hope  to  make  apparent  to  every  mind.  I 
have  heretofore  spoken  of  "  infant  baptism,"  while 
discussing  the  subjects  of  the  ordinance,  because  the 
Dr.  argues  in  favor  of  it.  But  I  shall  now  show,  that 
while  he  talks  of  "infant  baptism,"  he  practises  in- 
fant rantism.  I  am  aware  that  many  baptist  writers, 
have  followed  their  brethren  in  the  use  of  the  term 
mode  in  controversy  upon  this  subject,  out  of  courte- 
sy ;  while  both  truth,  and  the  laws  of  language,  have 
been  violated  as  the  necessary  consequence.  I  can- 
not compromit  the  claims  of  righteousness  and  disho- 
nor Christ,  for  the  sake  of  politeness  to  men.  The 
price,  is  too  great,  for  the  purchase  of  human  favor. 
In  the  search  for  Divine  obligation,  I  hope  never  to 
be  left  so  much  to  myself,  as  to  ask  for  (he  voice  of 
the  people.  "To  the  law  and  the  testimony"  should 
be  our  motto ;  and  implicit  submission  to  the  will  of 
God  should  be  our  greatest  pleasure. 

Philosophical  view. 
Every  distinct  substance,  possesses  a  form,  mode, 
or  figure,  peculiar  to  itself  or  its  class.     This  is  true 


51 

from  the  globe  down  to  an  atom,  whether  we  regard 
animate  or  inanimate  creation. 

Mathematical  science,  ascertains  the- nicer  shades 
of  distinction  between'  the  forms  of  substances,  and 
modes  of  action,  by  taking  its  observations  from  an 
axiom  founded  in  common  sense,  viz  :  Two  things, 
cannot  be  one  thing,  while  totally  distinct, — a  square 
and  a  circle  are  not  the  same  figure,  or  the  self-evi- 
dent reason,  that  they  are  entirely  dissimilar.  To 
confound  things  which  are  distinct  in-  form,  therefore, 
would  be  no  mire  unphilosophical  and  untrue,  than 
to  confound  two  distinct  actions  in  moral  conduct  un- 
der the  same  name.  But,  God  has  required  a  spe- 
cific action,  from  all  intelligent,  spiritual  subjects  of 
his  moral  government  under  the  name  of  baptism, 
and  therefore,  no  other  action  is  obedience  to  the  di- 
vine law  than  die  one  specified.  If  therefore,  sprink- 
ling is  baptism,  immersion  is  not,  for  two  things  can- 
not be  one,  while  distinct  and  dissimilar.  But,  if 
immersion  is  baptism,  then  sprinkling  is  not,  for  the 
same  reason.  That  immersion  fulfils  the  meaning 
of  the  Greek  word,  and  is  the  primary  definition, 
every  Lexicographer  declares,  and  all  our  opponents 
admit ;  therefore,  sprinkling,  being  a  different  action 
altogether,  does  not  fulfil  the  requisition  of  the  law. 
Crossing,  or  whipping,  the  subject,  would,  by  parity 
of  reasoning,  be  as  near  baptism,  as  the  action  of 
sprinkling  the  subject. 

This  becomes  more  obvious,  if  we  apply  the  above 
principle.  In  morals,  as  in  natural,  or  mathematical 
science,  in  regard  to  form  and  figure,  every  action 
has  modes  peculiar  to  itself.  Hence,  I  may  immerse 
or  baptise  a  person  sidewise,  forward,  or  backward. 
Here  are  three  distinct  modes  of  baptism.     So,  the 


52 

Dr.  might  rantise  or  sprinkle  a  person,  with  a  branch, 
a  broom,  or  his  fingers.  Here  are  three  modes  of 
sprinkling,  peculiar  to  the  action.  These  modes, 
are  not  transferable  from  one  action  to  the  other,  for 
the  common  sense  reason,  that  the  actions  are  not 
the  same.  No  man  would  suppose  he  could  im- 
merse another  by  any  of  the  modes  of  sprinkling. 
Nor,  on  the  other  hand,  would  any  man  think  he  had 
sprinkled  another,  when  he  had  immersed  him. 
Sprinkling  cannot  be  called  a  mode  of  baptism,  there- 
fore, without  an  abuse  of  languge;  nor  can  it  be  call- 
ed haptism  itself,  unless  we  violate  the  obvious  prin- 
ciples of  philosophy,  and  plain  common   sense. 

Nor,  yet,  will  any  man  argue,  that  the  Greek  lan- 
guage, the  most  copious  in  the  world,  perhaps,  is  so 
poor,  that  it  does  not  afford  a  name  for  the  action  of 
sprinkling.  Our  brethren,  would  seem  to  wish  to 
give  coloring  to  this  idea,  a  least,  from  the  fact,  that 
they  use  a  term  whose  radical  idea  is  immersion,  ac- 
cording to  their  own  admission,  to  express  that  of 
sprinkling  ;  as  though,  in  all  the  Greek,  there  were 
not  a  single  term  whose  appropriate  province  it  is  to 
express  that  idea.  What  then  is  the  corresponding 
Greek  word  for  the  English  word  sprinkle  ?  I  reply, 
rantizo.  Now,  if  the  reader  will  change  the  termi- 
nation by  substituting  e  for  o  he  will  transfer  it  into 
our  language,  just  as  King  James's  translators  trans- 
ferred the  Greek  term  baptizo  into  our  language. 
Give  it  the  English  ending,  and  you  have  the  word 
baptise.  As  the  meaning  of  baptizo  according  to 
classic  usage,  and  all  the  Lexicons,  is  dipping,  it 
would  be  just  as  proper,  philosophically,  and  ety- 
melogically,  for  our  brethren  to  call  rantism  or 
sprinkling,  immersion,  as  it  is  for  them  to  call  the 


53 

action  of  sprinkling,  baptism.  But,  as  sprinkling  is 
not  immersion,  therefore,  it  is  not  baptism.  And  it 
follows  by  consequence,  that  those  who  have  been 
sprinkled,  have  been  rantised,  and  not  baptised. 

-  Strictures  on  the  plea  for  rantism. 

On  page  84  the  Dr.  argues  that  the  partaking  of 
a  small  portion  of  bread  anu  wine  cannot  properly 
be  called  a  supper.  It  is  enough  for  us  to  know  that 
the  Holy  Spirit  has  so  called  it ;  and  besides  no  one 
supposes  that  the  quantity  a  man  eats  decides  the 
character  of  a  meal,  or  that  it  is  necesssry  to  consti- 
tute it  a  supper.  So  that  he  eats  the  bread  and 
drinks  the  wine,  it  is  all  that  is  required.  Eating 
and  drinking  the  elements,  are  indispensible,  regard- 
less of  the  mode  of  eating,  or  the  posture  of  the  body. 
The  baptist  churches  generally, perhaps,  universally, 
administer  the  communion  in  the  evening  of  the  day 

Our  author,  talks  of  applying  water  to  the  body. 
This  is  as  if  we  should  speak  of  applying  the  ground 
to  the  corpse  on  a  funeral  occasion.  The  command 
says,  "  baptising  them"  that  hear  and  believe,  and 
the  history  declares  of  believers,  "  we  are  buried 
with  Christ  by  baptism."  The  person  is  the  subject, 
and  not  the  water. 

On  page  87,  the  Dr.  commences  his  argument  by 
quoting  from  Acts  2  :  17.  If  the  reader  will  turn  to 
page  53  of  the  Lectures,  he  will  discover  how  easily 
the  Dr.  can  keep  Joel  out  of  sight,  and  put  the  pro- 
mise to  Abraham  in  the  mouth  of  Peter.  But,  the 
Dr.  was  on  the  subjects  of  baptism  when  he  penned 
that  lecture ;  and  Joel's  young  men  aud  old  men, 
who  should  prophecy,  could  not  by  any  process  of 
his,  be  turned  into  babes,  so  as  to  suit  his  purpose. 
Now,  the  subject   is,  whteher  the  disciples  of  our 


54 

Lord  were  sprinkled  with  the  Holy  Ghost, or  immers- 
ed in  the  Holy  Ghost  ?  In  support  of  the  former, 
the  Dr.  asserts  that  "  the  apostles  of  our  Lord  were 
baptised  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  by  having  his  divine 
influences  poured  out  upon  them."  But,  whatsaith 
the  record  ?  "  And  when  the  day  of  Pentecost  was 
fully  come,  they  were  all  with  one  accord  in  one 
place.  And  suddenly  there  came  a  sound  from  hea- 
ven, as  of  a  rushing  mighty  windy  and  it  filled  all  the 
house  where  they  were  sitting."  "  And  they  were 
all  filled  with  the  Holy  Ghost  and  began  to  speak 
with  other  tongues  as  the  Spirit  gave  them  utter- 
ance." It  appears  plainly  from  the  "  testimony," 
that  they  were  completely  overwhelmed  with  the 
Spirit,  as  the  immersed  person  is  with  the  water, 
and  also  filled  with  it.  Does  this  look  like  a  sprink- 
lingof  the  Holy  Ghost.  The  Holy  Ghost  was  on 
them  of  course,  as  it  was  all  around  and  in  them,  and 
"filled  all  the  house  where  they  were  sitting."  How 
unenviable  the  task  of  attempting  to  diminish  the 
grandeur  of  the  Divine  displays  of  grace,  for  the  pur- 
pose of  depriving  the  Saviour  of  the  honor  due  to 
Him  from  all  of  his  professing  subjects  ! 

It  ought  to  be  remembered  here  that  the  Greek 
particle  en  rendered  "  with"  in  our  version,  is  ren- 
dered in  several  of  the  first  English  versions  by  the 
word  "  in."  "  I  indeed  baptise  you  in  water  and 
he  that  cometh  after  me  shall  baptise  you  in  the  Holy 
Ghost."  Tyndale,  has  it  M  in"  water,  and  "  with" 
the  Holy  Ghost.  Matth.  3  :  11.  In  the  correspond- 
ing passage,  in  the  testimony  of  Mark  1  :  5.  it  is 
said  they  were  "  baptised  ci  in  Jordan,  for  the  idea 
of  taking  up  the  river  and  sprinkling  it  on  them 
would  have  been  too  barbarous  ;  nor,  could  they  say 


55 

"  with  the  water  of  the  Jordan,"  for  this  would  have 
been  such  a  manifest  departure  from  the  original,  that 
the  curse  in  Rev.  22:  19.  would  have  been  dreaded 
by  them.  But,  as  the  particle  en  may  sometimes  be 
rendered  "  with,"  and  as  the  translators  were  forbid- 
den by  King  James  to  translate  the  term  baptizo, 
they  so  rendered  it,  in  accordance  with  the  practice 
of  the  church  of  Rome.  See,  preface  to  old  English 
editions  of  the  received  version. 

The  J)r.  seems  to  be  reluctant  to  let  his  readers 
even  have  one  peep  into  the  Greek  language.  If  they 
could  but  learn  the  alphabet,  and  refer  to  any  Lexi- 
con in  the  Dr's.  library,  they  would  see  that  the 
Greek  word  for  sprinkle  is  rantizo,  and  that  the 
Greek  word  baptizo  means  immersion,  and  nothing 
else.  Sometimes,  Lexicographers  take  license,  and 
put  the  effect  of  dipping  some  three  or  four  removes 
from  the  primary  radical  definition.  In  doing  this 
the  word  wash  is  used  ;  which  always  implies  the 
dipping  of  the  person,  hands,  cups  or  other  things 
spoken  of. 

The  time  is  fast  passing  away  in  which  the  peo- 
ple will  be  satisfied  to  take  their  instructions  at  the 
lips  of  the  minister,  without  reference  to  the  word  of 
God,  especially  among  Protestants.  Without  ac- 
quaintance with  the  original  language,  the  intelligent 
reader  will  naturally  ask,  whether  the  Greeks  them- 
selves, understand  the  word  baptizo  to  mean,  to  pour 
or  sprinkle  ?  It  is  easy  to  satisfy  this  inquiry  by 
the  most  satisfactory  testimony. 

Sir.  P.  Ricaut,  says  that  the  "Greek  church 
holds  plunging  to  be  as  necessary  to  baptism  as  water 
is  to  the  matter."  Present  state  of  the  Greek  Church, 
page  163. 


Dr.  G.  King — The  Greek  church  uniformly  prac- 
tices immersion,  undoubtedly  the  most  primitive 
manner.  Rites  and  Ceremonies  of  the  Greek  church 
in  Russia,   p.  19*2. 

Dr.  Wall — The  Greek  church,  in  all  the  branch- 
es of  it,  does  still  use  immersion.  Hist.  Inf.  Bap. 
v.  II.  p.  3/6.  Ed.  3. 

In  the  April  number  of  the  Baptist  Miss.  Maga- 
zine for  1841,  there  is  an  account  of  the  conversion 
of  a  native  Greek,  who  expresses  his  views  upon 
the  ordinance  of  baptism  in  which  he  affirms  the 
same  things,  viz  :  That  the  Greek  church  had  no 
other  view  of  baptizo  than  dipping,  and  that  they  had 
from  the  first,  immersed  the  subject. 

The  next  passage  the  Dr.  examines  is  the  allusion 
Paul  makes  to  the  ordinance  in  1  Cor.  10:  1,  2. 
"Brethren,  I  would  not  that  you  should  be  ignorant, 
how  that  all  of  our  fathers  were  under  the  cloud,  and 
all  passed  through  the  sea,  and  were  all  baptised 
unto  Moses  in  the  cloud  and  in  the  sea."  "They  were 
under  the  cloud  and  passed  through  the  sea."  This 
exactly  agrees  with  the  history,  Ex.  14:  29.  See 
also  Ex.  13:21,  22,  and  14:  19-22.  "  And  were 
all  baptised  unto  Moses  in  the  cloud  and  in  the  sea  " 
The  sea  stood  in  walls  on  either  side,  and  the  cloud 
was  over  them,  between  them  and  the  Egyptians,  so 
that  they  were  filmed  from  the  sight  of  their  enemies. 
"  in  the  cloud  and  in  the  sea."  And  they  walked 
11  upon  the  dry  ground."  So  that,  while  they  were 
"  baptised  in  the  cloud  and  in  the  sea,"  they  were 
not  so  much  as  sprinkled  with  water.  Very  unfor- 
tunately for  the  Dr.  the  cloud  was  a  pillar  of  fire,  and 
had  not,  therefore,  so  much  as  one  drop  to  sprinkle 
upon  the  Israelites,  Ex.  13:  21.     The  Dr.  knew  that 


57 

no  one  contended  contrary  to  the  declaration  of  Paul, 
that  thev  were  "  baptised  in  the  Red  sea,"  in  the 
literal  sense  of  New  Testament  baptism.  And  no 
apology  can  be  found  for  the  insinuation,  except  it 
be  that  the  Dr.  has  no  fair  argument  for  rantism  in 
the  word  of  God,  and  is  obliged  to  resort  to  the  trick 
of  misrepresentation.  I  might  adduce  many  peedo- 
baptist  authorities  in  favor  of  my  interpretation.  One 
will  suffice.  IVitshis.  On  the  Gov.  Lib.  iv.  Chap, 
10  §  11,  says,  that  the  Apostle  used  the  term  "bap- 
tism" in  a  "figurative,  sense.''1  "  The  cloud  hung 
over  their  heads,  and  the  sea  surrounded  them  on 
each  side;  and  so  the  water  in  regard  to  those  that 
are  baptised." 

The  Dr.  proceeds  in  the  next  place,  to  find  some 
rantisms,  from  the  Jewish  custom  of  washing  hands, 
cups,  and  couches.  The  first  passage  the  Dr.  quotes 
he  misapplies.  The  Pharisees  did  not  refer  in  what 
they  said  of  our  Lord,  to  a  rite  of  purification,  but 
merely  of  a  custom  among  the  Jews,  of  washing 
hands  before  dinner.  And,  it  is  sufficient  for  us 
to  say,  in  reply,  that  the  Dr.  washes  his  hands  by 
immersion.  No  one  thinks  it  necessary  to  immerse 
his  body  in  order  to  wash  his  hands.  In  the  second 
quotation,  Math  15:  2.  They  wash  not  their  hands, 
<fec.  the  Dr.  was  careful  not  to  let  his  readers  know 
that  the  Greek  word  is  m'psontai,  and  not  baptizo. 
Many  of  the  most  learned  paodobapti.-t  writers,  assert 
that  there  were  two  sorts  of  washing  of  hands  refer- 
ed  to,  one  by  pouring,  (nipsontai,)  the  other  by  dip- 
ing,  (baptizontai.)  Dr.  G.  Campbell,  says,  "  For 
illustrating  this  passage,  let  it  be  observed,  first,  that 
the  two  verbs  rendered  wash  in  the  English  transla- 
tion, are  different  in  the  original.     The  first  is  nip- 


58 

sontai,  properly  translated  wash:  the  second  is  bap- 
tizontai,  which  limits  us  to  a  particular  mode  of 
washing  ;  for  baptizo  denotes  to  plunge  or  dip.11 
Accordingly  he  translates  the  passage,  "  For  the 
Pharisees  eat  not  until  they  have  washed  their  hands, 
by  pouring  a  little  water  upon  them;  and  if  they  come 
from  market,  by  dipping  them." 

The  custom  of  dipping  pots,  vessels,  and  couches, 
is  thus  described  by  the  Jewish  writer,  Maimonides, 
"  In  a  laver  which  holds  forty  sea/is  of  water,  they 
dip  all  unclean  vessels.  Ji  b-ed  that  is  wholly  defi- 
led, if  he  dips  it  part  by  part,  it  is  pure." 

The  case  of  "  divers  baptisms"  in  the  Jewish  ser- 
vice includes  the  bathing  of  the  Priests,  and  cleansing 
of  vessels,  &c.  &c.  While  the  sprinklings  or  ran- 
tisms  of  which  the  Apostle  speaks,  refeis  to  the  cere- 
mony of  setting  apart  person?  and  things  from  a  com- 
mon to  a  sacred  use.  But  the  words  are  never  in- 
terchanged id  reference  to  the  custom?'  and  ceremo- 
nies designated.  Kantizo  is  never  rendered  baptism, 
nor  washing;  nor  is  bapiizo  ever  rendered  sprink- 
ling, or  applied  to  the  sprinkling  ceremonies  of  the 
Jewish  worship. 

On  page  93  the  Dr.  refers  to  the  symbolical  im- 
port of  the  ordinance.  Peter  anticipates  him,  and 
says,  that  "it  is  not  the  washing  away  of  the  filth 
of  the  flesh,  but  the  answer  of  a  good  conscience  to- 
ward God,  by  faith  in  the  (death  and)  resurrection  of 
Jesus  Christ."  We  are  said  to  be  washed  from  our 
scarlet  colored  sins,  to  receive  the  washing  of  regen- 
eration, wash  away  our  sins  by  baptism,  as  in  the 
case  of  Paul,  <fcc.  &c.  A  fountain  is  opened  in  the 
house  of  David  for  sin  and  uncleanness;  and  *«  the 
blood   of  Jesus  Christ  his   Son  cleanseth  from    all 


59 

sin."  We,  by  baptism,  profess  that  we  have  re- 
ceived the  cleansing  efficacy  of  the  blood  of  Christ ; 
and  others  see  in  the  ordinance,  the  symbol  of  the 
spiritual  bathing  in  the  flood  of  salvation  flowing  from 
the  Saviour's  side.  It  is  also  emblemalic  of  our  death 
unto  sin,  and  resurrection  unto  spiritual  life.  *»  We 
are  buried  with  Christ  by  baptism,"  like  as  he  was 
raised  up  by  the  glory  of  the  Father,  even  so  should 
we  walk  in  newness  of  life."  Rom.  6:4. 

ETYMOLOG  ICAL    VIEW    OF    THE    WORD    BAPTIZO. 

It  is  only  necessary  on  this  point,  for  me  to  say, 
that  universally,  both  in  classic  and  sacred  authors, 
the  word  baptizo  (baptise)  is  rendered  immerse  ;  or 
construed  in  accordance  with  that  definition.  Paedo- 
baptist  authors,  shall  furnish  the  proof,  whose  incon- 
sistency, I  leave  the  Dr.  to  reconcile. 

From  the  numerous  Lexicographers,  I  shall  only 
refer  to  Robinson's  Lexicon,  which  is  the  standard 
work  in  sacred  interpretation  ;  and  Donnegan's  Lex- 
icon, the  standard  work  in  classic  study.  I  begin 
with  Robinson.  Article  Baptism. 

Baptizo, — to  submerge,  sink. 

Baptisma,  (what  is  immersed.) 

Bapfismos,  baptism,  immersion;  spoken  of  the 
religious  rite  instituted  by  Christ. 

Bapto,  to  dip  in,  to  immerse. 

Donnegan  renders  the  word  thus  : 

Baptizo,  to  immerse;  submerge, — saturate. 

Baptisma,  an  object  immersed,  submerged. 

Baptos,  immersed  ;  dyed  ;  drawn  out. 

Bapto,  to  dip,  to  plunge  into  water,  wash,  dye. 

I  now  bring  forward  a  few,  out  of  hundreds  of  Pae- 
dobaptists,    who    contradict    their    own    practices. 


60 

Thus;  ihey  write  their  own  condemnation,  for,  the 
Dr.  says,  the  "  command  ought  to  be  obeyed." 

Calvin.  "  The  word  baptizo  sgnifies  to  immerse, 
and  the  rite  of  immersion  was  observed  by  the  anci- 
ent church."  Institutes,  lib.  v.  chap   xv.  §  2. 

Luther.  "  Baptism  is  a  Greek  word,  and  may  be 
translated  immersion,  as  when  they  immerse  some- 
thing in  water,  that  it  may  be  wholly  covered.  And 
although  it  is  almost  wholly  abolished,  (for  they  do 
not  dip  the  whole  children,  but  only  pour  a  little 
water  on  them,)  they  ought  nevertheless  to  be  whol- 
ly immersed,  and  then  immediately  drawn  out  ;  for 
that  the  etymology  of  the  word  seems  to  demand.'" 
11  The  Germans  call  baptism  tauff%  from  a  depth, 
which  in  their  language  they  call  teeff,  because  it  is 
proper  that  those  who  are  baptised  be  deeply  immers- 
ed." Luth.  Op.  vol.  I.  p.  333. 

Vitringa.  »  The  act  of  baptising,  is  the  immer  ■ 
sion  of  believers  in  water.  This  expresses  the  force 
of  the  word.  Thus  also  it  was  performed  by  Christ 
and  his  apostles."  Aphor.  Sanct.  Theol.  Aphoris. 
884. 

HospitiiAN'us.  "  Christ  commanded  us  to  be  bap- 
tised; by  which  word  it  is  certain  immersion  is  sig- 
nified."'His.  Sacram.  L.  II.  C.  i.  p.  30. 

Gurtlerus.  "  To  baptise,  among  the  Greeks,  is 
undoubtedly  to  immerse,  to  dip  ;  and  baptism  is  im- 
mersion, dipping.  Baptismos  en  Pneumati  agio, 
baptism  in  the  Holy  Spirit,  is  immersion  into  the 
pure  waters  of  the  Holy  Spirit;  for  he  on  whom  the 
Holy  Spirit  is  poured  out,  is  as  it  were  immersed  in- 
to him.  Baptismos  enpuri,  '  baptism  in  fire.''  is  a 
figurative  expression,  and  signifies  casting  into  a 
flame,  which,  like  water,  flows  far  and  wide  ;  such 


Gl 

as  the  flame  that  consumed  Jerusalem.  The  thing 
commanded  by  our  Lord,  is  baptism  ;  immersion  in- 
to water."  Institut.  Thco.  cap.  xxxiii.  §  108,  109, 
110,  115. 

Buddeus.  "  The  words  baptizein  and  baptismos, 
are  not  to  be  interpreted  of  aspersions,  but  always  of 
immersion.     Theoiog.  Dogmat.  L.  V.  C.  i.  §  5. 

Salmasius,  "  Baptism  is  immersion,  and  was  ad- 
ministered in  former  times,  according  to  the  force  and 
meaning  of  the  word.   De  Cae^arie  Virorum,  p.  669. 

Venema.  *.*  The  word  baptizein,  to  baptise,  is 
nowhere  used  in  the  Scripture  for  sprinkling."  Inst. 
Hist.  Eccl.  Vet.  et.  Vov.  Test.  Tom.  III.  sec.  i. 
§  138. 

Extracts  from  German  writers  of  the  age  of  the 
Reformation,  and  a  few  years  subsequent,  might  be 
greatly  multiplied  ;  but  it  would  be  superfluous. 

Professor  Fr'tciie,  a  disciple  of  Hermann,  in  his 
Com.  on  Matt.  iii.  6,  says  ;  «  That  baptism  was 
performed  not  by  sprinkling,  but  by  immersion,  is 
evident,  not  only  from  the  nature  of  the  word,  but 
from  Rom.  vi.  4." 

Augusti,  vol.  v.  p.  5.  '*  The  word  baptism,  ac- 
cording to  etymology  and  usage,  signifies  to  im- 
merse, submerge,  §c;  and  the  choice  of  the  expres- 
sion betrays  an  age  in  which  the  latter  custom  of 
sprinkling  had  not  been  introduced.''' 

Brenner,  p.  1.  "  The  word  corresponds  in  sig- 
nification with  the  German  word  taufen,  to  sink  into 
the  deep." 

The  author  of  the  Free  Inquiry  respecting  Bap- 
tism, Leipsic,  1802.  "  Baptism  is  perfectly  identi- 
cal with  our  word  immersion  or  submersion  {tauch- 
en  oder  untertauchen.)     If  immersion  under  water 


G2 

is  for  the  purpose  of  cleansing,  or  washing,  then  the 
word  means  cleansing  or  washing."   p.  7. 

Bretschneii>er,  in  his  Theology  of  1828,  vol.  ii. 
p.  673  and  981.  "  An  entire  immersion  belongs  to 
the  nature  of  baptism." — "  This  is  the  meaning  of 
the  wordy  This  writer  is  confessedly  the  most  cri- 
tical lexicographer  of  the  New  Testament. 

Paullus,  in  his  Com  ,  vol.  i.  p.  278,.  says,  the 
word  baptise  signifies,  in  Greek,  sometimes  to  im- 
merse, sometimes  to  submerge." 

Rheinhard's  Ethics,  vol.  v.  p.  79.  "  In  sprink- 
ling, the  symbolical  meaning  of  the  ordinance  is  whol- 
ly lost." 

"  Professor  Rost,  the  principal  Greek  lex  cographer 
now  living,  in  his  standard  German-Greek  Lexicon, 
revised  with  the  assistance  of  a  native  Greek,  puts 
down  as  the  primary  signification  of  all  such  words 
zsplunge,  immerse  and  submerse  {tauchen,  cinlauch- 
en,  witertaitchen,)  bapto;  but  under  the  words wash, 
wet,  pour,  and  the  like  (tvaschen,  beneizen,  giessen, 
begiessen,)  though  he  gives  copious  definitions  in 
Greek,  he  never  employs  the  word  bapto,  or  any  of 
its  derivatives.  Can  any  thing  be  more  to  the  point?'' 
Christian  Review,  vol.  iii.  p.  97. 

Schleusner,  in  his  Lex.  on  baptisma.  »  Those 
who  we^e  to  be  baptised  were  anciently  immersed." 
Indeed,  the  three  New  Testament  lexicographers, 
Schleusner,  Wahl  and  Bretschnider,  limit  baptism  as 
a  sacred  ordinance  to  immersion. 

Sciioiz,  on  Matt.  iii.  6.  "  Baptism  consists  in  the 
immersion  of  the  whole  body  in   water." 

Professer  Lange,  on  Infant  Baptism,  of  1834.  p. 
81.  "  Baptism  in  the  apostolic  age  was  a  proper 
baptism, — the  immersion  of  the  body  in  water." — 


63 

M  As  Christ  died,  so  we  die  (to  sin)  with.him  in  bap- 
tism. The  body  is,  as  it  were,  buried  under  water, 
is  dead  with  Christ ;  the  plunging  under  water  re- 
presents death,  and  rising  out  of  it  the-  resurrection 
of  a  new  life.  A  more  striking  symbol  could  not  be 
chosen.'* 

The  author  of  the  Free  Inquiry  on  Baptism,  p.  36. 
11  The  baptism  of  John  and  that  of  the  apostles  were 
performed  in  precisely  the  sam-e  way,"  i.  e.,  the  can- 
didate was  completely  immersed  under  water.  Speak- 
ing of  Rom.  vi.  4,  and  Gal.  iii.  27,  he  says,  "  What 
becomes  of  all  these  beautiful  images,  when,  as  at 
the  present  day,  baptism  is  administered  by  pouring 
or  sprinkling  ?" 

Rosenmuller,  Koppe  and  Bloomfield,  all  hold 
the  same  strong  language  on  this  subject.  We  will 
quote  only  the  last,  as  he  includes  the  others. 

In  his 'Critical  Digest  on  Rom.  vi.  4,  he  says, 
"  There  is  here  plainly  a  reference  to  the  ancient 
mode  of  baptism  by  immersion  '>  and  I  agree  with 
Koppe  and  Rosenmuller,  that  there  is  reason  to  re- 
gret it  should  have  been  abandoned  in  most  Christian 
churches,  especially  as  it  has  so  evidently  a  reference 
to  the  mystic  sense  of  baptism." 

Waddington,  in  his  Ch.  Hist.  p.  27,  calls  "  im- 
mersion, the  oldest  form  of  baptism." 

Bretcshneider: — "  In  the  word  baptizo,  and  bap- 
tisma  is  contained  the  idea  of  a  complete  immersion 
underwater;  at  least  so  is  baptisma  in  the  New 
Testament."  Theology.  Leipsic,  1830,  vol.  ii. 
p.  681. 

M  Rheinhard  rightly  says,  that  baptismos  may  al- 
so signify  every  common  purification,  but  baptisma 
is  used  only  at  religious  immersion." 


m 

Dr.  Cave: — "  The  party  to  be  baptised  was 
wholly  immersed,  or  put  under  water; — whereby 
they  did  more  notably  and  significantly  express  the 
three  great  ends  and  effects  of  baptism." 

Dr.  Johnson,  when  arguing  with  a  friend,  in  pal- 
liation of  the  Romish  innovation,  to  which  Dr.  Whit- 
b}7  alludes  (that  of  taking  the  cup  from  the  laity,)  ob- 
served :  4i  They  may  think  that,  in  what  is  merely 
ritual,  deviations  from  the  primitive  mode  may  be  ad- 
mitted on  the  ground  of  convenience  ;  and  I  think 
they  are  as  well  warranted  to  make  this  alteration  as 
we  are  to  substitute  sprinkling  in  the  room  of  the  an- 
cient baptism." 

Dr.  Chalmers,  when  commenting  on  the  passage 
in  the  sixth  chapter  of  Romans,  in  which  the  expres- 
sion occurs,  **  buried  with  him  by  baptism,"  ob- 
serves, "  The  original  meaning  of  the  word  baptism 
is  immersion  ;  and  though  we  regard  it  as  a  point  of 
indifference  whether  the  ordinance  so  named  be  per- 
formed in  this  way,  or  by  sprinkling;  yet  we  doubt 
not  that  the  prevalent  style  of  the  administration  in 
the  apostle's  days,  was  by  an  actual  submerging  of 
the  whole  body  under  water." 

Edinburgh  Ency. — 'k  In  the  time  of  the  apostles, 
the  form  of  baptism  was  very  simple.  The  person 
to  be  baptised  was  dipped  in  a  river  or  vessel,  with 
the  words  which  Christ  had  ordered,  and  to  express 
more  fully  his  change  of  character,  generally  assum- 
ed a, new  name.  The  immersion  of  the  wole  body 
was  omitted  only  in  the  case  of  the  sick,  who  could 
not  leave  their  beds.  In  this  case,  sprinkling  w;  s 
substituted,  which  was  called  clinic  baptism.  The 
Greek  church,  as  well  as  the  schismatics,  in  the  East, 
retained  the  custom   of  immersing  the  whole  body  ; 


G5 

but  the  Western  church  adopted,  in  the  thirteenth 
century,  the  mode  of  baptism  by  sprinkling,  which 
has  been  continued  by  the  Protestants,  Baptists  only 
excepted." 

Circumstantial  evidence  examined. 

The  Dr.  seems  determined  to  destroy  the  institu- 
tion ot  baptism,  by  pleading  for  a  mode  of  rantism. 
We  have  seen,  that  neither  precept  nor  practice,  can 
he  found  in  the  Bible,  for  an  ordinance  of  rantism  in 
the  name  of  the  Trinity;  and  that  it  is  opposed  to 
reason  and  common  sense,  to  apply  a  mode  of  one 
action,  to  the  performance  of  another.  In  the  next 
place,  the  attendant  circumstances  of  baptism,  are 
brought  forward;  and  the  history  of  them  construed 
in  such  a  way,  as  tu  favor  rantism,  if  possible.  On 
page  94,  the  Dr.  n  fers  to  the  baptism  in  Jerusalem, 
on  the  day  of  Pentecost.  "  Then  they  that  gladly 
received  the  word  were  baptised,  and  the  same  day 
there  were  added  unto  them  about  three  thousand." 
Now  the  historian  does  not  say  they  were  bnptised 
on  that  day.  He  only  asserts  that  such  as  gladly 
received  the  word,  on  that  occasion,  were  baptised. 
Nine  tenths  of  the  three  thousand  added  to  the 
church  on  that  day,  may  have  been  of  the  multitude 
whom  John  and  the  Apostles  had  previously  baptised, 
in  Jordan.  But  supposing  they  were  all  baptised  on 
that  day.  If  the  work  were  divided  between  the  seven- 
ty disciples  and  twelve  Apostles  of  our  Lord,  there 
would  have  been  less  than  forty  for  each  administra- 
tor. And  the  writer  of  this,  has  on  several  occasions, 
with  the  assistance  of  a  Deacon,  baptised  two  in  a 
minute.  In  twenty  minutes,  therefore,  the  u  hole 
number  could  have  been  baptised.  The  warm  heart* 
5 


66 

ed  converts  who  afterwards  were  willing  to  suffer  the 
confiscation  of  all  iheir  goods,  or  lay  them  at  the 
Apostle's  feet  to  be  distributed  among  the  needy, 
were  of  course,  ready  to  supply  those  who  needed 
assistance  with  a  change  of  apparel.  Nor  would  the 
disciples  be  prohibited  the  privilege  of  immersing  in 
the  pools,  for  the  citizens  were  struck  dumb  with 
the  majestic  displays  of  God's  power  and  grace.  In 
regard  to  poluting  the  pools,  Josephus,  attributes  the 
healing  virtues  of  the  water  of  Bethesda,  to  the  en- 
trails of  animals  brought  to  the  sheep  market  near  by 
this  pool.  Besides,  it  is  evident  from  history,  and 
the  five  porches  or  dressing  rooms  constructed  upon 
the  verge  of  this  pool,  that  the  principal  object  of  it 
was  to  afford  facilities  for  bathing.  The  size  of  the 
pool  of  Bethesda,  to  say  nothing  of  those  of  Siloe 
and  Rogel,  was  sufficient  for  the  immersion  of  the 
three  thousand,  the  administrators  standing  four  feet 
apart.  Chateaubriand,  who  visited  Jerusalem  about 
thirty  years  ago,  says,  that  it  measures  380  feet 
around.  Maundrell,  that  it  was  120  paces  long,  and 
40  broad,  and  8  feet  in  the  deepest  place.  See  Cal- 
met's  Dictionary,  or  Dr.  Clark,  on  2  Chron.  32:  30. 
Is.  22:  9,  and  John  9:  7,  and  Dr.  Gill  on  Acts  2:  41, 
In  regard  to  Kedron,  but  fifty  one  clays  before,  the 
Saviour  crossed  the  brook  with  his  disciples  to  Geth- 
semane.  It  was  not  a  dry  valley  at  thai  time.  And, 
it  was  fei\  by  those  never  failing  fountains  flowing 
from  Mount  Moriah,  which  secured  to  the  land  the 
praise  of  being  "  well  watered,"  and  "  flowing  with 
milk  and   honey."  ~ 

We  have  seen,  that  on  that  day,  the  followers  of 

hrist  were  baptised  in  the  Holy  Ghost — the  whole 

q  use  l-eing  filled  with  the  Divine  influence,  where 


67 

they  were  sitting;  and  that  none  were  baptised  except 
those  who  "  gladly  received  the  word."  Rantism, 
according  to  Dr.  Wall,  was  not  practised  until  thir- 
teen hundred  years  after  this  time,  and  then  only  by 
those  who  submitted  to  the  authority  of  the  Pope  of 
Rome.  See  Wall's  History  of  Infant  Baptism  v  ii. 
page  37G.  On  the  baptism  at  Jerusalem,  it  is  only 
necessary  further  to  say,  that  no  historian  thinks  of 
describing  the  attendant  circumstances  of  any  given 
custom  or  rite,  in  their  minutia,  every  time  he  refers 
to  it.  He  only  deems  it  necessary  to  name  it,  as  he 
sees  it,  after  he  has  once  or  twice  particularly  describ- 
ed the  scene. 

The  case  of  the  Jailer  is  next  brought  forward. 
The  Dr.  is  very  much  tried  for  methods  of  shifting 
from  the  force  of  history.  "They  were  in  the  pris- 
on," the  Dr.  says.  Luke  says  they  were  brought 
out,  verse  30.  And  then,  that  they  spake  in  his 
house,  verse  32.  And,  then,  that  the  Jailer  took 
them,  and  washed  their  stripes;  and  was  baptised,  he 
and  all  his  straitway.  And,  then,  verse  34,  when  he 
had  brought  them  into  his  house,  he  set  meat  before 
them.  Now,  it  must  be  plain,  to  any  one  that  will 
see,  that  Paul  and  Silas  were  taken  out  of  the  pris- 
on, into  the  houses  then  took  away  from  the  house, 
to  have  their  lacerated  backs  washed,  and  to  baptise 
the  believing  household;  and  then,  brought  into  the 
house  after  the  baptism  was  performed.  Add  to  this 
what  is  said  in  verse  13,  and  you  have  all  the  princi- 
pal attendant  circumstances  of  immersion,  and  the  fa- 
cilities in  addition.  There,  w?s  the  river  Strymon, 
and  they  went  out  of  the  house  to  baptise,  and  re- 
turned to  the  house,  after  they  had  obeyed  the  Savi- 
our, and  the  household  had  imitaied  his  example 


C8 

Can  a  matter  be  more  plain,  where  the  ordinance  is 
not  particularly  described?  The  Dr.  says,  page  98, 
that  they  were"  still  in  prison.  This  is  a  flat  contra- 
diction of  the  sacred  historian,  who  says,  they  were 
taken  out,  verse  30,  and  afterwards  took  from  the 
house  to  baptise.  That  they  went  into  the  prison 
again  is  freely  admitted;  but  that  did  not  change,  or 
destroy  the  previous  fads  recorded  of  them. 

Let  the  reader  take  Pittsburgh,  and  apply  the  nar- 
ration of  facts  in  Philippirto  the  Jail  and  the  river  in 
this  city;  and  see  how  easily  the  whole  can  be  un- 
derstood of  the  immersion  of  the  jailer's  family  in  the 
city  of  Philippi.  Here,  the  river  is  only  a  few  hun- 
dred yards  from  the  prison.  And  we  may  rationally 
-suppose  that  the  distance  was  not  greater  in  Philip- 

Pi-        , 

John  s  baptism,  "  in  Enon  near  to  Salim,  because 

there  was  much  water  there,"  is  the  next  case  intro- 
duced. And  here  the  Dr.  makes  sad  work  with  the 
sacred  record.  His  paraphrase  would  seem  to  pur- 
port, that  John  baptised  where  there  was  much  wa- 
ter,  to  keep  the  people  from  dying  with  tJiirst.  The 
much  water,  was  to  drink,  according  to  his  view. 
John,  and  the  multitude  came  to  Enon  to  drink,  be- 
cause there  was  much  water  there!  This  sage  criti- 
cism, would  not  look  so  bad,  if  it  could  be  made 
appear  that  the  object  of  John's  mission  was  to  lead 
the  people  about  from  one  drinking  place  to  ano- 
ther, to  keep  them  from  being  "exposed  to  immi- 
nent danger  of  perishing  in  consequence  of  thirst!" 
The  Dr.  becomes  eloquent  here,  and  seems  to  say, 
that  any  other  view  has  as  little  foundation  as  "  the 
baseless  fabric  of  a  dream."  John  Calvin  says  that, 
'*  from  these   words,  John  3:10,  it  may  be   mlerred, 


69 

that  baptism  was  administered  by  John  and  Christ, 
by  plunging  the  whole  body  in  water."     In.  Loc. 

While  he  dreams  of  rantising  upon  the  base, 
lie  has  laid  in  his  remarkable  exposition,  1  take  my 
stand  on  the  immutable  testimony  of  God,  that  "  John 
was  baptising  in  Enon,  near  Salim,  because  there 
was  much  water  there." 

The  next  paragraph,  is  "  based"  upon  a  quibble 
as  puerile,  as  the  former  supposition  is  destitute  of 
support.  Who  ever  supposed,  far  less  maintained, 
that  when  it  is  said  that  John  baptised  in  Enon,  that 
the  administration  of  the  ordinance,  bears  the  same 
relation  to  the  village,  that  it  does  to  the  element  or 
river  into  which  the  candidates  were  plunged?  There 
would  be  perfect  propriety  in  saying,  that  I  baptise 
in  Pittsburgh,  in  the  river  Mbnongahela.  In  the  first 
part  of  the  phrase,  in  Pittsburgh,  it  is  distinguished 
from  all  other  cities  and  towns;  and  in  the  second, 
the  river  designated,  in  which  the  persons  are  baptis- 
ed. What  law  of  language  is  violated?  Suppose, 
the  Dr's.  favorite  rendering  of  the  Greek  word  en 
were  adopted,  and  his  practice  of  rantism  **  ere  de- 
scribed, tiien  we  should  have  it  thus.  He  rantised 
the  children  loith  Pittsburgh!  John  baptised  with 
Enon  !  When  we  allow  the  Holy  Spirit  to  narrate, 
ail  is  intelligible.  John  baptised  in  the  wilderness 
of  Judea,  in  the  river  Jordan.  And,  not,  in  the  wil- 
derness of  Egypt,  nor  in  the  river  Nile.  If  we  were 
to  substitute  with  for  in,  it  would  read  thus; — and  the 
"  people  were  baptised  of  him  with  [he  river  of  Jor- 
dan." This  would  be  nonsense.  We  are  confirm- 
ed, therefore,  in  the  conclusion,  that  the  baptism  was 
performed  in  the  river  Jordan. 

It  is  moreover   affirmed  by   the    evangelists   that 


70 

Christ  came  up  siraitway  out  of  the  water  after 
lie  had  been  baptised.  A  circumstance,  always  at- 
tendant on  baptism ;  but  never  accompanying  rantism, 
or  sprinkling.  And  who  ever  read  of  cups,  bowls, 
or  basins  in  connection  with  primitive  baptisms? 
Gladly,  would  the  humble  forerunner  of  our  Lord, 
have  carried  a  basin  of  water  from  the  river  or  else- 
where, to  have  served  the  purpose  of  rantism,  if  such 
had  been  the  will  of  the  Redeemer.  But,  no  !  the 
lowly  Lamb  of  God,  more  humble  than  his  professed 
followers,  went  into  the  river,  and  set  us  an  example 
that  we  should  follow  his  steps,  saying,  "  Thus,  it 
becometh  us  to  fulfill  all  righteousness!"  The  Eter- 
nal Father,  and  the  Holy  Comforter,  approved  the 
sacred  institution,  which  Doctors  of  Divinity  try  to 
explain  away,  and  supercede,  by  a  human  inven- 
tion! 

The  case  of  the  Eunuch  is  next  referred  to.  I 
should  think,  that  there  could  not  possibly  be  any 
difficulty  in  understanding  the  nature  of  the  ordinance 
from  the  circumstances  here  narrated.  But,  it  does 
not  seem  to  be  the  object  of  the  Dr.,  to  let  plain 
truth  on  this  subject  have  its  eflect  upon  those  who 
are  under  the  influence  of  his  instructions.  He 
evidently  labors  to  obscure  its  light,  and  blunt  its 
edge,  by  a  multitude  of  words,  which  taken  as  rules 
of  interpretation,  are  without  wisdom.  For,  if  the 
particles  en  and  eis,  are  to  be  interpreted  contrary  to 
the  force  of  the  verb  and  the  context,  then  there  is 
no  marvel  why  Daniel  was  not  eaten  by  the  lions. 
Upon  the  Dr's.  principle,  he  was  only  taken  to  the 
door  of  the  den  ! 

And  although  our  Lord  says  the  righteous  shall 
enter  eis  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  yet  they   may 


71 

only  arrive  at  the  gate,  if  the  Dr's.  principle  of  in- 
terpretation prevail  !  But  how  plain  the  passage — 
11  They  went  down  into  the  water,  both  Philip  and 
the  Eunuch,  and  he  baptised  (not  rantised)  him." 
Now,  first,  we  see  Philip  and  the  distinguished 
stranger  descending  from  the  chariot,  and  going  down 
into  the  water;  then,  Philip  baptised  him,  according 
to  the  law  in  Math.  23,  and  Mark  16,  in  the  name  of 
the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost:  and  when  they 
were  come  up  out  of  the  water,  &c.  he  went  on  his 
way  rejoicing."  The  passage  quoted  from  Is.  52, 
was  not  the  passage  the  Eunuch  was  reading.  The 
passsge  is  quoted  by  Luke  from  the  53d  chapter  of 
that  Prophet.  Besides,  the  Hebrew  word  rendered 
"sprinkle,"  in  the  verse  referred  to,  is  almost  inva- 
riably translated  elsewhere  by  astonish.  And  the 
prophecy  evidently  means,  that  Christ  should  aston- 
ish the  nations,  by  the  greatness  of  his  condescen- 
sion, the  disinterestedness  of  his  love,  the  power  of 
his  miracles,  the  purity  of  his  doctrines,  the  intensity 
of  his  voluntary  sufferings,  the  triumph  of  his  resur- 
rection, and  especially  by  the  achievements  of  his 
grace,  as  the  reward  of  his  victory  over  death,  hell, 
and  the  grave. 

In  keeping  the  commands  of  God  there  is  great 
reward  ;  and  the  Eunuch,  who  entered  into  the  mar- 
velous— astonishing  light  of  the  above  truths,  wil- 
lingly submitted  to  the  Divinely  appointed  ordinance, 
and  went  on  his  way  rejoicing.  May  all  who  be- 
lieve in  the  Son  of  God,  follow  him,  as  he  also  fol- 
lowed Christ  ! 

On  Rom.  6  :  4,  the  Dr.  follows  closely  in  the  track 
of  Dr.  Woods  of  Andover,  and  with  him  fails  to  de- 
stroy the  force  of  the  argument  derived  from   that 


72 

and  parrallel  passages.  Unluckily,  for  the  Dr.  the 
««  sound,"  "meaning,"  and  every  thing  else,  in  the 
verse  and  context,  are  against  the  practice  of  rantism. 
"  We  are  buried  with  Christ  by  baptism."  &c.  It  is 
not  said,  that  we  are  buried  with  Christ  by  dying 
unto  sin,  or  being  sacrificed  to  the  world,  or  by  be- 
lieving in  Christ;  but  "by  baptism."  Without  a 
perversion  of  Paul's  meaning,  no  criticism  can  des- 
troy the  force  of  this  proof  for  immersion.  Paul  in- 
troduced it,  as  it  was,  in  the  days  of  primitive  Chris- 
tianity, when  it  was  yet  unmutilated  by  the  hand  of 
man.  It  was  at  that  time,  illustrative,  of  the  burial 
and  resurrection  of  Christ,  because  ihe  resemblance 
was  striking.  The  Dr.  attempts  to  detect  some  dis- 
similarity between  the  ordinance  of  baptism,  and  the 
burial  of  Christ.  But,  if  he  were  as  effectually  bu- 
ried in  a  watery  grave,  as  Christ  was  buried  in  the 
tomb  of  Joseph,  when  the  stone  closed  the  door,  I 
should  take  him  by  the  hand,  as  an  obedient  disci- 
ple of  the  Redeemer,  buried  with  him  by  baptism, 
in  affectionate  commemoration  of  the  Saviour's  death 
and  resurrection  ;  and  in  evidence  to  others,  that  he 
determined  no  longer  to  "  make  void  the  commands 
of  God,  by  the  traditions  of  men." 

The  similarity  between  the  loaf  and  the  body  of 
Christ  is  no  more  striking.  The  wafer  and  rantism, 
are  on  a  par  in  this  respect. 

Anxious  to  find  some  shadow  of  proof  for  sprink- 
ling, the  Dr.  refers  on  page  113  and  114  to  the 
sprinklings  connected  with  the  Jewish  worship.  All, 
readily  admit,  that  there  were  typical  sprinklings,  as 
well  as  immeisioiis,  under  that  dispensation.  But, 
this  by  no  means,  proves  thr-.t  there  is  a  figurative 
rantism,  or    sprinkling,   instituted   by   the   Head  of 


13 

the  church,  in  this  dispensation.  There  are  but  two 
ordinances  in  the  kingdom  of  the  Saviour  ;  and  these 
are  positive  commands — not  to  be  mutilated  in  the 
least  by  us,  but  to  be  implicitly  obeyed. 

When  the  blood  of  Christ  is  called  the  blood  of 
sprinkling,  it  is  in  allusion  to  the  sprinkling  of  the 
blood  of  the  sacrifices  in  the  Jewish  worship  ;  but, 
instead  of  the  word  baptism  being  used  in  the  Greek, 
it  is  invariably  the  word  mutism.  Let  not  any  one 
who  raniises,  therefore,  pretend  to  act  under  the 
commission  of  our  Lord,  which  commands  the  minis- 
ter to  Baptise.  Let  those,  at  once  acknowledge  they 
rantise  under  the  authority  of  the  Pope  of  Rome, 
who,  are  determined  not  to  be  governed  by  the  law 
of  God  and  example  of  Christ.  To  those,  who  are 
willing  in  the  day  of  God's  power,  His  yoke  is  easy, 
and  his  burden  is  light.  By  such  submission- to  their 
Lord  and  Master,  they  testify  their  love  'o  him  who 
first  loved  them  ;  and  shed  a  light  upon  those  who 
look  upon  the  order  of  God's  house,  thai  they  may- 
see  their  good  works,  and  also  glorify  their  Father 
in  heaven.  May  every  branch  of  Zion,  exhibit  the 
light  of  truth  to  a  world  of  darkness  ;  as  i>  shone  in 
the  ordinances  of  Christ,  when  Christianity  was  in  its 
pristine  purity,  and  when  the  church  in  its  primitive 
splendor,  was  emphatically  a  light  to  the  world! 


74 

SYLLABUS  OF  THE   ARGUMENT. 

Introductory  Remarks. — 1.  Professors  of  reli- 
gion, in  general,  consider  baptism  as  a  duty  ;  and 
that  it  ought  to  be  attended  to  by  all  proper  subjects. 

2.  Baptism  is  a  positive  institution,  and  therefore 
we  must  have  some  plain  precept,  or  example,  to  di- 
rect us,  both  with  respect  to  the  persons  who  are  to 
be  baptised,  and  the  ordinance  to  be  administered. 

3.  If  we  proceed  in  this  ordinance,  or  any  other, 
without  authority  from  Scripture,  God  will  reject  our 
services  with,  "  Who  hath  required  this  at  your 
hands  ?"  "  In  vain  di  ye  worship  me,  teaching  for 
doctrines  the  commandments  of  men." 

4.  Baptism  is  an  ordinance  peculiar  to  the  Gospel 
dispensation  ;  and  therefore  the  rule  of  our  duty  must 
he  sought  in  tire  New  Testament,  and  not  in  the 
Old. 

5.  The  law  whhh  enjoins  baptism  may  be  found 
in  Matt.  28  :  19,  20.  It  enjoins  a  duty,  durable  as 
the  unchanging  dispensation  to  which  it  belongs — to 
charge  the  command  with  obscurity,  is  a  daring  im- 
peachment of  Divine  Wisdom  and  Love — to  suppose 
the  Apostles  did  not  understand  it,  is  highly  absurd  ; 
they  certainly  must  understand  it  right,  an<l  their 
practice  must  be  the  best  comment  upon  it. 

6.  If,  by  searching  sacred  history,  we  can  learn, 
that  the  Apostles  attended  to  baptism,  we  are  bound 
to  follow  their  example  ;  nor  can  any  argument,  de- 
rived from  education,  custom,  fashion,  popularity, 
supposed  indelicacy,  non-essentiality,  &c,  &c.  &c, 
justify  those  who  live  in  the  known  neglect  of  it ;  for 
what  are  all  these,  when  opposed  to  divine  law,  to 
primitive  universal  practice? 


75 

The  following  observations,  with  the  remarks  un- 
der each,  are  submitted  to  the  pious  reader's  candid 
consideration  . 

First — We  have  no  proof,  from  the  New  Testa- 
ment, that  the  Apostles  ever  rantised  or  sprinkled. 

Argument  1.  If  the  Apostles  sprinkled,  it  is  rea- 
sonable that  they  would  have  told  us  so,  but  no  inti- 
mation of  this  can  be  collected  from  the  New  Testa- 
ment. 

Argument  2.  The  word  baptise  does  not  signify- 
to  sprinkle,  but  to  immerse;  this  is  granted  by  all 
the  learned.  The  Apostles  well  knew  that  this  was 
the  import  of  the  word,  and  fidelity  to  their  Master's 
command  would  induce  them  to  dip,  and  not  sprinkle. 

Argument  3.  If  a  few  drops  of  water,  falling  from 
the  hands  of  a  priest,  were  sufficient  for  this  ordi- 
nance, how  absurd  and  unaccountable  the  conduct  oi 
the  Apostles  :  they  chose  places  where  there  was 
much  water  ;  and  because  there  was  much  water  : 
they  went  down  into  the  rivers  to  baptise  :  and  shall 
we  dare  to  charge  the  Apostles  with  foUy,  to  keep 
up  the  credit  of  sprinkling  ? 

Argument  4.  The  word  baptism  is  sometimes  used 
in  Scripture  in  an  allusive  or  figurative  sense; 
Christ's  sufferings  are  called  a  baptism — the  effu- 
sions of  the  Holy  Ghost  are  called  a  baptism — and 
the  Apostle  says,  "  we  are  buried  with  him  by  bap- 
tism." Can  we  suppose  that  Christ  was  sprinkled 
with  sufferings — that  the  apostles  were  sprinkled 
with  the  Holy  Ghost — that  a  body  is  buried  when 
a  few  particles  of  dust  are  sprinkled  ?  Absurd  sup- 
position !  But  if  dipping  or  covering  with  water, 
be  proper  baptism,  then  the  passages  referred  to  are 
clear,  and  the  allusions  proper,  because  the  resemb- 
lance is  striking:. 


70 

Inferences. — 1.  As  sprinkling  is  not  baptism, 
those  who  have  been  only  sprinkled,  have  not  been 
baptised  at  all. 

2.  That  it  betokens  great  ignorance  to  deny  that 
immersion  is  baptism,  when  such  is  the  meaning  of 
the  original  word,  and  it  is  constantly  used  in  that 
sense. 

3.  That  those  persons  who  have  been  sprinkled, 
ought  to  utbmit  to  immersion  ;  for  the  Scriptures  tell 
us  that  there  is  "one  baptism,"  and  no  more. 

4.  That  a  person  must  be  greatly  unacquainted 
with  the  plain,  liter;:!,  Scriptural  account  of  baptism; 
or  extremely  prejudiced,  not  to  say  perverse,  to  af- 
firm that  the  Bible  says  nothing  about  immersion,  or 
burying  in  water  as  baptising  :  for  it  speaks  of  this 
alone. 

Secoxd — We  have  no  Scriptural  authority  to  bap- 
tise infants. 

Argument  1  If  the  Apostles  baptised  infants,  it  is 
reasonable  to  suppose  they  would  have  told  us  so; 
but  we  have  not  the  least  intimation  of  their  baptising 
one  infant  in  all  their  travels;  they  sneak  of  baptis- 
ing men  and  women,  but  never  infants. 

Argument  2  The  things  required  of  candidates  by 
the  Apostles  necessarily  exclude  infants  :  they  re- 
quire Instruction,  Repentance  Confession,  Reforma- 
tion, and  Faith  ;  infants  are  incapable  of  these,  there- 
fore not  the  proper  subjects  of  baptism.  It  is  granted 
that  the  Apostles  baptised  several  households,  but 
there  are  many  households  without  infams  ;  and  the 
Bible  says  nothing  about  infants  in  these;  what  is 
said  of  th"S'j  households  cannot  with  any  truth  be 
said  of  infants — they  believed,  rejoiced,  and  minis- 
tered: are  infants  capable  of  these  ? 


77 

It  is  a  fact,  that  infants  or  children  were  brought 
to  Jesus,  and  that  he  blessed  them  ;  but  not  one 
word  is  said  about  his  baptising  them  ;  and  it  is  cer- 
tain that  Christ  did  not  baptise  them  ;  for  he  never 
baptised  any,  either  young  or  old.  We  sometimes 
hear  of  baptism  succeeding  circumcision  ;  and  as  in- 
fants were  circumcised,  so  they  ought  to  be  admitted 
to  baptism  ;  but  it  is  sufficient  (o  say,  this  strange 
succession  is  no  where  taught  in  Scripture;  and 
therefore  we  have  nothing  to  do  with  it. 

Inference. — As  infant  sprinkling  is  a  human  in- 
vention, it  is  in  vain  to  expect  the  smiles  of  God  upon 
it :  and,  therefore,  the  popular  opinion  must  be  erro- 
neous and  injurious,  which  states,  that  infants,  when 
sprinkled,  are  made  "  members  of  Christ,  children  of 
God,  and  inheritors  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven."  A 
supposition  absurd  in  the. extreme,  contrary  to  Scrip- 
ture, falsified  by  universal  observation,  and  danger- 
ous in  proportion  to  the  credit  it  gains  in  the  re- 
ligious world:  there  being  reason  to  fear,  that  ma- 
ny when  they  come  to  the  years  of  maturity,  trust- 
ing to  this  sprinkling  work,  go  securely  to  ruin. 

Third. — There  is  all  the  proof  that  we  can  reason- 
ably desire,  that  the  Apostles  baptised,  i.  e.  immers- 
ed. 

Argument  1.  The  Apostles  certainly  did  baptise. 
The  preceding  observations  clearly  prove  that  they 
did  not  sprinkle,  we  therefore  infer,  that  dipping 
was  the  ordinance. 

Argument  2.  The  radical,  primary  sense  of  the 
word  baptise,  required  them  to  dip  or  plunge.  In- 
deed, it  is  so  understood  by  all  learned  men:  and  so 
the  Greeks  practise. 

Argument3.  The  places  they  chose,  and  their  go- 


78 

ing  down  into  these  places,  make  it  manifest  that 
they  immersed.  "John  also  was  baptizing  in  Enon 
near  to  Salim,  because  there  was  much  water  there. " 
Bowls,  are  never  mentioned. 

Fourth-. — It  is  undoubtedly  evident  that  many  be- 
lievers were  baptised  by  the  Apostles. 

Among  many  other  examples,  we  find  Lydia,  Ste- 
phanas, the  Jailer,  the  Eunuch;  and  in  Acts  2,  we 
read  of  three  thousand,  therefore,  as  we  have  three 
thousand  and  four  plain  examples  in  favor  of  believ- 
ers' baptism,  and  not  one  solitaiy  example  of  infant 
sprinkling,  in  all  the  travels  and  writings  of  the  Apos- 
tles, let  conscience  decide  what  is  the  line  of  duty. 
The  law  is — "  He  that  believeth  and  is  baptised  shall 
be  saved." 

Last. — We-  give  an  epitome  of  our  reasons  for 
practising  believer's  baptism. 

We  practise  immersion,  not  because  we  wish  to 
differ  from  our  brethren  of  other  denominations,  nor 
because  we  expect  that  water  will  wash  away  our 
sins,  or  procure  any  part  of  our  salvation,  but  we  ad- 
minister the  ordinance,  because, 

1.  We  are  commanded  to  do  so.  It  would  there- 
fore be  presumptuous  to  slight  the  command  of  our 
Lord,  upon  he  ground  of  non-essentiality,  or  upon 
any  other  pretence  whatever.  "  It  is  better  to  obey 
than  to  sacrifice." 

2.  We  cannot  in  conscience  trifle  with  baptism, 
because  that,  in  effect,  charges  Christ  with  being  a 
trifler. 

3.  Because  we  wish,  on  earth,  to  walk  in  the  imi- 
table  steps  of  that  Je>uis  with  whom  we  hope  to  live 
in  heaven  for  ever.  "Leaving  us  an  example,  that 
we  should  follow  his  steps," 


79 

4.  Because  Christ  calls  it  a  part  of  righteousness, 
and  we  desire  to  fulfil  all  righteousness,  that  we  may 
avoid  those  guilty  fears  which  arise  from  neglect, 
11  It  is  the  answer  of  a  good  conscience  towards 
God," 

5..  Because  we  wish  to  be,  and  prove  ourselves 
to  be  the  friends  of  the  Redeemer,  by  universally 
regarding  his  commands,  "Ye  are  my  friends,  if 
ye  do  whatsoever  I  command  you,"  And  because 
we  are  anxious  to  avoid  the  censure  due  to  hypo- 
crites, "  Why  call  ye^me  Lord,  Lord,  and  do  not  the 
things  which  I  say  ? 

6.  Because  we  keep  in  view  that  solemn  day,  when 
we  must  give  up  our  accounts  to  the  Judge  of  the 
world.  "  Whoever  is  ashamed  of  me  before  men,  of 
him  will  I  be  ashamed  before  my  Father  and  all  his 
holy  angels." 

Importance  of  Baptism. — The  preceding  obser- 
vations have  shown  what  is  baptism,  and  who  should 
be  baptised  ;  to  see  its  importance,  observe,  that 

1.  God  appointed  it.  John  1  :  33.  "He  that  sent 
me  to  baptise,"  &c. 

2.  Christ  submitted  to  it.  "  Then  cometh  Jesus 
from  Galilee  to  Jordan  unto  John,  to  be  baptised  of 
him."   Matt.  3  :   13  ;  Luke  3  :  21. 

3.  Jesus  called  it  a  part  of  righteousness.  Jesus 
said,  "  Suffer  it  to  be  so  now  :  for  thus  it  becometh 
us  to  fulfil  all  righteousness."   Matt.  3  :   15. 

4.  The  Holy  Ghost  sanctioned  it.  "Jesus,  when 
he  was  baptised,  went  up  straightway  out  of  the  wa- 
ter ;  and  lo  !  the  heavens  were  opened  unto  him, 
and  he  saw  the  Spirit  of  God  descending  like  a  dove, 
and  lighting  upon  him  ;  and,  lo  !  a  voice  from  hea- 
ven, saying,  this  is  my  beloved  Son,  in  whom  I  am 


80 

well    pleased."  1VL  tt.  3  :   10,  17;  Luke  3  ;  21,  22- 
5.  The  Lord  Jesus  commanded  it.  "Go  ye,  there- 
fore, tearh   all  nations,  baptising-  them."     Matt.  28  ; 

6.  The  Apostles,  under  the  influence  of  the  Spirit, 
practised  it.  Peter  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  said, 
"  Repent,  and  be  baptised  every  one  of  you.  Acts 
2;  38. 

7.  The  first  Christians  were  baptised.  "  Then 
they  that  gladly  received  his  word  were  baptis- 
ed." Acts  2;  41.  See  also  the  case  of  the  Jailer, 
Eunuch,  etc. 

8.  Baptism  teas  then  thought  a  privilege.  "See 
here  is  water,  what  doth  hinder  me  to  be  baptised." 
Acts  8;  36. 

9.  The  Apostle  Paul  was  baptized.  «'•  He  arose 
and  was  baptised."  Acts  9  ;  18.  And  was  first  call- 
ed on  to  be  baptised  without  delay.  "  And  now, 
why  tarriest  thou?  arise  and  be  baptised,  and  wash 
away  thy  sins,  calling  on  the  name  of  the  Lord." 
Acts  21  ;   16. 

10.  The  effusion  of  the  Spirit  was  given  as  a  reason 
for  baptism,  not  against  it.  "  Can  any  man  forbid 
water,  that  these  should  not  be  baptised,  which  have 
received  the  Holy  Ghost."     Acts  10:47. 

11.  '1  hey  who  refuse  to  submit  to  God's  appoint- 
ment, reject  his  counsel.  *'  And  all  the  people  that 
heard  him,  and  the  publicans,  justified  God,  being 
baptised  with  the  baptism  of  John,  but  the  Pharisees 
and  lawyers  rejected  the  counsel  of  God  against 
themselves,  being  not  baptised  of  Urn."  Luke  7: 
29,  30. 

12.  Christ  calls  for  obedience.  "  Why  call  ye  me 
Lord,  Lord,  and  do  not  the  things  which  I  say?" 
Luke  ti.46. — 4k  Ye  are  my  friends,  if  ye  do  whatsoe- 
ver I  command  you."     John  15: 14. 


f 


W g   .  >.'■;;■ 


msm 


